Nature Of Infringed Rights Was Personal To Him: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order Impleading Deceased Priest's Son In Suit Against Diocese Of Delhi CNI

The Court observed that the nature of the infringed legal rights was personal to the priest and was not heritable.

The Court was hearing the present civil revision petition filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order whereby the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, permitting the respondent to be impleaded as Plaintiff in place of his deceased father.

The bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed, “it is apparent that the deceased/plaintiff was appointed as a religious priest in the Church in his individual and personal capacity by petitioner/defendant No.1. He was also evidently allotted and allowed to retain the accommodation in the suit premises inside the church premises solely to facilitate him in discharging the religious duties in the Church. The nature of infringement of his legal rights, if any, which were claimed by the deceased/plaintiff, were personal to him and certainly not heritable.”

Brief Facts-

Rev. John H. Caleb was assigned to Green Park Free Church as its priest and given accommodation in the Church Parsonage. After retiring he continued to serve, later he was re-appointed and allowed to stay until 2018, when he was asked to vacate. He filed a suit seeking a Permanent Injunction against his eviction and a declaration of the church's independence from the Diocese of Delhi-CNI. However, the trial court allowed the substitution of Caleb’s son after Caleb died, noting the son's right to protection against forcible dispossession, and held that the right to sue survived for the legal representative under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC.

The Court noted that Order XII Rule 1 of the CPC provides that the death of the plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives.

The Court mentioned the decision in Puran Singh v. State of Punjab and quoted, “If the right is held to be a personal right which is extinguished with the death of the person concerned and does not devolve on the legal representatives or successors, then it is an end of the suit.”

The Court further relied on the decision in Radhey Shyam v. Kayastha Hitkarini Sabha and quoted, “Since appellant Radhey Shyam has died during pendency of appeal, therefore, after his death, cause of action does not survive for his personal claim as Pujari of the temple. His personal right extinguished with his death and does not devolve on his legal representatives. That being so, the appeal also abates.”

Accordingly, the Court found that the impugned order allowing the application of the respondent under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC suffers from patent illegality and amounts to an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.

Finally, the Court allowed the present revision petition and set aside the impugned order. The Court held that the suit of filed by the deceased/petitioner bearing CS titled Rev. John H. Caleb Vs. Dioceses of Delhi Church of North India (CNI) & Ors. abates meaning thereby it comes to an end and shall not be proceeded with further in the Trial Court.