IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2009 MR. VALERIANO GABRIEL CARNEIRO ... Appellant Versus MR. FERNANDO DE SOUZA AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 15th July, 2009 P.C. Heard. 2. The Second Appeal challenges rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 by Trial Court as also by Lower Appellate Court. Plaintiff, who claims to be member of a private Church is claiming that as per Bye-Laws of the Church has to hold annually three feasts and its action of holding only one feast and particularly not holding Triduum feast is not in accordance with law. The maintainability of suit was assailed by present respondents and Courts have concurrently held that the suit was not maintainable. 3. Appellant has relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court 1995 SUPP (4) SCC 286, Rev. P. M. A. Metropolitian & Ors. vs. Moran Mar Marthoma & anr. The said Jusgment does not consider enforcement of a totally private obligation at the instance of a Member. In present facts, plaint as filed does not disclose that Bye-Laws alleged to be breached had any statutory character. Majority has taken a decision to celebrate only one feast every year and that decision is being obeyed by the Church. In the suit, effort is to defeat the decision allegedly reached by majority. 4. The learned Counsel for appellant has, during arguments, stated that the Courts below have not rejected the plaint on the ground that plaintiff was seeking to enforce a private Bye-Law. 5. I have read the relevant portion of the plaint and also impugned Orders. In the light of discussion above, I find that Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court which speaks of religious right like right to worship, entering a temple, administration of religious rights, etc., as rights of civil nature cannot be stretched to include a right in individual to force majority to act as per his desire. Such an enforcement can be legally permissible only when the decision of appellant-plaintiff is backed by some statutory instrument. I, therefore, find that no substantial question of law arises. 7. Second Appeal is dismissed. No Cost. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. arp/*