THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3277 of 2011 ORDER: Respondent No.1 (for short ‘the respondent’) was appointed as Pastor for the J.M.B.Church, Ongole about two and half decades ago. In the recent past, he submitted a resignation. Shortly thereafter, he has withdrawn the same, may be before it was accepted. The petitioners herein permitted the respondent to withdraw the resignation by imposing two conditions, namely that he shall not accept the post of Assistant General Secretary in Baptist Conference of Telugu Churches and that he shall not go for second marriage. Accordingly, he was permitted to continue as Pastor. The respondent filed O.S.No.184 of 2010 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction as to his functioning as Pastor in the Church. He has also filed I.A.No.696 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 15.07.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.26 of 2010 in the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ongole. The C.M.A. was allowed through order, dated 02.08.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Parameswar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as Pastor and he was functioning and that he submitted resignation. The controversy arose on account of submission of resignation by him. The fact remains that even before it was accepted, the respondent has withdrawn the resignation and that in turn was permitted by the petitioners by imposing certain conditions. The question as to whether the respondent has violated the conditions and thereby, incurred disqualification, needs to be considered in the suit. As of now, no written communication has emerged from the petitioners disqualifying the respondent. Therefore, his right to continue to hold the post cannot be denied. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the convention prevailing in the community, a Pastor, who marries a widow, incurs disqualification and thereby, he is precluded from preaching the followers. In the trial of the suit, it needs to be verified as to whether such a practice exists in the community and if so, whether it has assumed the status of law or custom. As of now, the respondent cannot be denied the status of Pastor. However, since it is not disputed that he has married a widow, the sentiments of the Church and its followers need to be respected. This Court is of the view that a decent balance needs to be struck between the two extremities. Hence, the civil revision petition is partly allowed modifying the order under revision to the effect that the respondent shall be entitled to function as Pastor for all purposes except for preaching from the pulpit area on Sundays. The petitioners shall not interfere with the functioning of the respondent in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:05.09.2011 kdl