Yella Babu Rao vs Airport Baptist Church

R.Raghunandan Rao, J

The petitioners have filed O.P.No.528 of 2017 in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the respondents herein, for the relief of conduct of elections for the 1st respondent-Church, for the years 2017- 2019. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioners have also moved I.A.No.476 of 2019, for a direction to the Court to permit the petitioners to conduct the second service in the petition schedule Church on every Sunday. This application was filed on the ground that the main petition for conduct of election was not being disposed of and in the meanwhile, the petitioners were not being allowed to participate in the prayers being held every Sunday from 8.30 A.M to 11.30 A.M. As the petitioners were not being allowed into the Church, they sought a direction from the trial Court to be permitted to conduct a second service after completion of the first service.

The respondents contested this application.

After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed this application, by an order dated 22.10.2021 on the ground that grant of this relief would amount to an injunction against the respondents without deciding the question of whether the petitioners are members of the Church or the Sangam and without deciding on the question of entitlement of the RRR,J CRP.No.1318 of 2021 petitioners to ask for conduct of elections. The trial Court also took the view that the main O.P. itself could be decided instead of going into the interlocutory application.

Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court ought to have taken into account the fact that the petitioners were being prohibited from entering into the Church and as such, were not able to participate in the Sunday prayers. He further submits that the trial Court ought to have taken this factor into account and permitted the petitioners to conduct a second service after the first service is over as the Church is empty after the first service is completed.

Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi, learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the trial Court, by holding that the main O.P. itself could be decided, had erred in not disposing of the application on merits.

Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the main prayer in the petition is for holding elections, while the prayer in the application is for permission to conduct services in the Church. He submits that the said prayer is wholly irrelevant for disposal of the main case or for protecting the subject matter of the case and is not maintainable.

Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since this issue has not been raised earlier, the same cannot be raised before this Court.

In view of the rival submissions, this Court deems it fit to set-aside the order of the trial Court dated 22.10.2021 in I.A.No.476 of 2021 and remand the application back to the trial Court for a decision as to whether the prayer in this application can be considered in view of the fact that main prayer in the petition is only for conduct of elections while the prayer in this application was for conduct of services in the Church. The trial Court may also look into the merits of the application, if it finds it necessary for a proper adjudication of the application.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.