1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.79/2007. Issac s/o Pundlik Khatgaonkar - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Ashok S.Joglekar & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PB Shirsath,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.PU Ambade, Advocate for Resp.No.1; Mr.KS Bhore, Advocate for Respondent No.4; ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 16th November,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard extensively. 2) Regular Civil Suit No.203/2006 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner seeking injunction. On appearance, the defendants objected to the jurisdiction of the court, by an application in terms of Section 9A CPC. The learned Judge, after framing a preliminary issue, allowed the parties to lead evidence and then answered the preliminary issue against the plaintiff, 2 directing him in terms of order VII Rule 10 CPC to present the plaint in proper court, as the plaintiff failed to give the details of the proper court, as was required under Order VII Rule 10A CPC. The learned District Judge, by order dated 6.6.2007, did not interfere in the order of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahata dated 6.1.2007. 3) Mr.Shirsath, learned Counsel for plaintiff/petitioner submits that the jurisdiction of a court is to be determined based on the averments in the plaint. In order to endorse his submission, he has placed reliance to the judgment of this Court, reported in 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 545 ( Southen Automatic Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Mrs. N.S.Talpade and Anr.); A.I.R. 1985 SC 577 – (Abdulla Bin Ali and Ors. Vs. Galappa and Ors.); and A.I.R. 2006 SC 1828 ( Mayar (H.K) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Owners & Parties Vessel M.V.Fortune Express & Ors.) 4) There cannot be any quarrel on the legal proposition, as has been enunciated in the aforesaid judgments. Indeed, the law that has been declared in Abdulla Bin Ali’s case (cited supra )1985, has been taken support and referred in the subsequent judgment. 3 5) Even if the plaint averments of this case are solely to be considered, it is explicit, the Transferring Authority of the plaintiff was residing at Pune at the material time when the orders were passed. There may be conflict between the Secretaries, one resides at Bidar or other who resides at Pune, however, the fact remains, the plaintiff is either an employee or officer under the control of the Secretary of the Church, cannot and need not question the authority of the secretaries. 6) Mr.Shirsath was vocal in criticizing the observations of both the courts on the point of placing reliance to The Book of Discipline of The methodist Church in India and clause 1634 thereof. Learned Counsel also submits that the Book of Discipline is not registered with any Authority. I do not agree that it so requires a sanction of the organization under which the petitioner/plaintiff works. According to him, these are only the resolutions which are passed and will not culminate into a law to be so treated by the courts and or will not be binding to the courts. I differ to the learned Counsel, because in Book at page 455, clause 1632 contemplates about ratification of the Book of Discipline (86-266: General Conference Minutes)and reads as under : 4 “1632. On ratification of the Book of Discipline (86-266: General conference Minutes). The following resolution was moved by Raj Kumar Michael and was unanimously passed; Whereas the first General Conference of the M.C.I. held 7-15 January, 1981 at Madras by its action 81-387 adopted working Bye- Laws and further authorized the Executive Council to edit the same; and Whereas the Executive Council edited, approved and printed the same; Be it resolved that the General Conference being held in New Delhi on 7th October, 1985 hereby ratifies the actions of the Executive Council in editing, approving the Bye-Laws and publishing the Book of Discipline in 1982; Be it further resolved that all those Bye-laws which have been approved by the other appropriate bodies be hereby ratified and incorporated into the Book of Discipline including the Bye-Laws of the WSCS and MYF.” 7) Relevant portion of Rule 1634 applicable is clause (b) of Rule 1634, which reads as under : “1634(b) Legal jurisdiction to entertain and try proceedings in law or suits commenced against any Regional Conference or its officers, the Regional Executive Board, the presiding Bishop and the Executive Secretary thereof shall rest with 5 the Courts in that place where the Executive Secretary is resident.” 8) In the light of above referred provisions in the Book of Discipline and the nature of duties assigned to the plaintiff/petitioner, he could not have bank on the provisions of Order 20 and particularly sub-clause (c) CPC for challenging any action of the authority under whom the plaintiff is working. Since he is controlled by the Book of Discipline, it is erroneous and even inconceivable that the plaintiff can challenge the authority in the said Book. 9) Section 9A of CPC is held to be inconsonance with Order 14 Rule 2A and it will not stand repealed, as a result of Section 32 and 16 of the Central Amendment Act of 1999 and 2002 respectively, having so observed by the learned Division Bench in CRA No.54/2006 dated 29.11.2007. 10) In the result, I do not see any error in the orders passed by both the courts, The CRA lacks merits, dismissed. No costs. 11) Heard. Interim relief, operating in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff since 2007, is continued up to 7th December, 2010. 6 (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/