Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENU KAUSHIK: DISTRICT
JUDGE – 03: NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS No.202/26
Calvary Church, Vikaspuri, Delhi ....Plaintiff
Versus
Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. ....Defendants
09.06.2026
ORDER
1. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the application
moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC on behalf of plaintiff
seeking temporary injunction.
2. Arguments on the application have already been heard.
3. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for plaintiff that present suit
is filed by the plaintiff for declaration, permanent and mandatory
injunction along with consequential reliefs. It is stated that
plaintiff is a Calvary Church, Vikaspuri, Delhi, presently
comprising more than 300 faithful families having members. It is
further stated that the plaintiff church has filed this suit through
its duly elected and constituted Pastorate Committee acting
through its treasurer Mr. Jerry Prince William who has been duly
authorized by resolution by a Pastorate Committee. It is stated
that under CNI constitution, the Pastorate Committee is
entrusted with the spiritual welfare and temporal concerns of the
congregation and it is primarily an irreplaceable organ of local
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 1 of 10
-- 1 of 10 --
governance. It is further stated that its dissolution without notice
and hearing are unconstitutional and is a nullity. It is further
stated that under CNI constitution, the executive committee is
charged with the duty to intervene to bring about normalcy. It is
further stated that in May 2023, Rev. Mohit Heinz Hitter was
transferred to Calvary Church, Vikaspuri as Presbyter Incharge
and the congregation received him with open arms and bond was
built through worship, fellowship, confirmation classes, and
within four months of his arrival, the congregation had grown to
trust him as their shepherd, brother and fellow servant.
4. On 28.09.2023, defendant no.1 issued a letter suspending
Rev. Mohit Heinz Hitter for six months with effect from
01.10.2023 on the basis of findings of an internal committee
constituted under the Sexual harassment of Women at the
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The said letter was issued without any prior notice to Pastorate
Committee and without sharing the IC report with the plaintiff
and without consulting the congregation. It is further stated that
no regard to 16 adult members of plaintiff church was taken who
were midway through their mandatory six months confirmation
classes and this way their spiritual milestone deferred without
explanation and the 16 confirmation candidates were left in
limbo. It is further stated that the plaintiff continued to raise its
concerns and objections by letters dated 09.11.2023 and
24.11.2023, however, the Diocese persisted in its silence and
indifference. Thereafter, the plaintiff escalated the matter to the
Moderator of the CNI Synod by e-mails, however, the Moderator
also did not intervene and the congregation of Calvary church
was left entirely without recourse within the very institution that
was constitutionally bound to protect them. It is further stated
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 2 of 10
-- 2 of 10 --
that on 03.04.2024 i.e. precisely one day before the expiry of six-
month suspension, defendant no.1 issued a fresh letter
terminating Rev. Mohit Heinz Hitter’s service as Presbyter
Incharge with effect from 03.04.2024. It is further contended that
this was deliberately done to prevent reinstatement of Rev.
Mohit Heinz Hitter, and for this plaintiff had protested vide letter
dated 04.04.2024, and again approached the Synod Moderator on
06.04.2024, however, no response was received. It is further
stated that one civil suit is filed by Rev. Mohit Heinz Hitter
against Rt. Rev. Paul Swarup, Bishop & Ors, which is pending
before Ld. District Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
5. It is further stated that defendant no.1 thereafter, posted
Rev. Daman Derick Rodgers as a de facto Presbyter Incharge of
plaintiff church on 14.04.2024. It is further stated that defendant
no.1 on 05.05.2025 through defendant no.2 issued a letter
addressed to Rev. Daman Derick Rodgers stating that the plaintiff
church’s assessment had not been paid since October 2023 and
that the participation in Diocesan programmes had been absent,
and accordingly resolved that the plaintiff church would be
debarred from accessing Diocesan privileges and the Pastoral
Committee stood dissolved. Thereafter, defendant no.1 issued a
transfer order directing defendant no.4 Rev. Timothy Shaw to
take charge of the plaintiff church with effect from 12.04.2026.
The transfer of defendant no.4 to plaintiff church was without
opinion of Pastoral Committee and without consideration of
congregation needs, wishes or ongoing trauma and this way
defendant no.1 compounded the injury of congregation. Plaintiff
has sought the following restraints against the defendants:
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 3 of 10
-- 3 of 10 --
(a) Restrain defendants no. 1 to 5, their agents, associates,
supporters, appointees and all persons acting through or under
them, from;
(i) Acting upon, giving effect to or enforcing the Transfer
Order dated 05.03.2026, the Posting Order dated
09.03.2026, the letter dated 19.03.2026 or the letter dated
22.04.2026;
(ii) Installing, inducing, imposing or thrusting any
Presbyter-in-charge or Associate Presbyter upon the
Plaintiff Church;
(iii) Interfering in the internal administration, governance,
records, accounts, premises and temporal affairs of the
Plaintiff Church;
(iv) Withholding or conditioning confirmation of eligible
candidates upon any condition;
(v) Physically entering or trespassing upon the premises of
the Plaintiff Church except for lawful worship;
(vi) Taking any punitive, coercive or retaliatory action
against the plaintiff, its Pastorate Committee, officers or
members;
6. Per contra, it is submitted that by way of present
application, Rev. Mohit H. Hitter has aimed to procure the
indirect reinstatement. Rev. Mohit H. Hitter has already been
terminated and his license is revoked pursuant to the internal
committee inquiry under POSH Act for a proven act of sexual
harassment. It is stated that the Plaintiff has dishonestly
suppressed the fact that one another matter where Rev. Mohit H.
Hitter is restraint from creating any third-party interest in the suit
property and from restraining incumbent priest or newly
appointed priest from holding religious services in the Calvary
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 4 of 10
-- 4 of 10 --
church vide order dated 05.06.2024 of the Ld. Civil Judge,
South-West Dwarka in Civil Suit no. 709/2024. It is argued that
by way of present application, the plaintiff has sought to nullify
the said order of the court. It is further stated that plaintiff has
further suppressed the pendency of another suit no. 4173/2024
pending in the court of Ld. District Judge-01, Patiala House
Court. It is further argued that the Church of North India is a
religious denomination of Christian community within the
meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution of India which provides
freedom to manage religious affairs. It is further argued that relief
sought by the plaintiff by way of present application is contrary
to Article 26, and hence, the same is not maintainable.
7. It is further stated that the application is not maintainable,
as the plaintiff is neither a registered society, nor a trust, or a
corporate body, and it is not a juristic person. It is further stated
that the plaintiff is only a Pastorate Committee which has already
been lawfully dissolved by DEC Resolution dated 18.09.2025. It
is argued that a dissolved committee cannot invoke the
discretionary injunctive jurisdiction of the court, and the letter of
authorization in the present case is signed by a terminated and a
license revoked Presbyter. It is denied on part of defendant no. 1,
2 and 3 that any impugned action was taken without notice,
hearing or constitutional authority. It is further stated that the
sacrament of confirmation has not been weaponized, and it
continues to be administered across the Diocese to all the
candidates from Pastorates in good standing, and the diocese has
repeatedly offered restoration of all administrative privileges,
including confirmation upon the plaintiff resuming basic
ecclesiastical discipline. It is further stated that the alleged ruckus
of 19.04.2026 is vehemently denied and the bishop and the
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 5 of 10
-- 5 of 10 --
Diocesan representatives attended the Calvary church, Vikaspuri,
on the said date for lawful installation of the duly transferred
Presbyter, pursuant to Bishop’s order dated 18.04.2026, and it
was the plaintiff group that created some public disturbance
which led to the police intervention. It is also contended that
plaintiff cannot be permitted to manufacture an incident of its
own obstruction as the foundation for an injunction in its favour.
8. It is further stated that the balance of convenience lies,
overwhelmingly with the defendants, as plaintiff is already stands
restrained by the subsisting order dated 05.06.2024 of the Ld.
Civil Judge, South-West, Dwarka in another suit from restraining
the incumbent or newly appointed Presbyter from holding
religious services in the plaintiff church. It is further stated that
the lawful installation of the duly transferred Presbyter and the
Constitution of an ad hoc Pastorate Committee will only restore
the normalcy to the Pastorate. It is further stated that 110
communicant members of plaintiff Church had written to
defendant no. 1 expressing that the writ petition and the present
suit were filed without their knowledge, consent or approval of
the congregation, and that no resolution in this regard was ever
passed, and no funds were sanctioned by the congregation for the
litigation.
9. It is also stated in the letter that the present proceedings are
a personal representation and not a congregational one. It is
further stated that if the rights of those 300 faithful families were
truly to be affected, the plaintiff was bound to comply with the
mandatory requirements of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and obtain
leave to sue in a representative capacity with notice to the person
so interested. It is further argued that there is no irreparable
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 6 of 10
-- 6 of 10 --
injury to the plaintiff, and on the contrary, every injury alleged
has the direct and continuing consequence of the illegal
perpetuation of the dissolved pastorate Committee. It is further
stated that the appointment of a duly transferred Presbyter in
Church and constitution of an adult Pastorate Committee by the
defendant no. 1 vide order dated 24.04.2026 would enable the
regular administration of the Pastorate. It is further stated that
defendant shall suffer gravest prejudice, if the injunction sought
is granted, as this way, entire disciplinary administration of the
defendant would stand paralyzed at the instance of plaintiff, and
the lawful transfer and posting of a senior Presbyter would be
frustrated, and the subsisting order dated 05.06.2024 of the Ld.
Civil Judge, South-West would stand nullified. It is further
contended that this way the disciplinary process of the defendant
conferred by the CNI Constitution would be undermined.
10. Arguments addressed on behalf of both the sides are taken
into consideration. Record perused.
11. The present application is filed by the plaintiff seeking
directions against the defendants to restraint them from acting
upon giving effect to or enforcing transfer order dated
05.03.2026, posting order dated 09.03.2026, letter dated
19.03.2026 or the letter dated 22.04.2026. Restraint orders are
also sought from installing, inducting, imposing or thrusting any
Presbyter In-charge or any associate Presbyter In-charge upon the
plaintiff church and from interfering in the internal
administration, governance, records, accounts, premises and
temporal affairs of plaintiff church. Restraint is also sought from
withholding or conditioning confirmation of eligible candidates
upon any condition. Restraint is also sought against the
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 7 of 10
-- 7 of 10 --
defendants from physically entering or trespassing upon the
plaintiff church for lawful worship and from conducting any
punitive coercive action against the plaintiff which is Pastoral
Committee or members.
12. It is admitted on behalf of plaintiff that authority letter to
file the present suit by Mr. Jerry Prince William on behalf of
Calvary church, Vikaspuri is given under the signature of Rev.
Mohit H. Hitter and Mr. Pradeep Otto, Secretary, Pastoral
Committee. It is not denied that Rev. Mohit H. Hitter has already
been terminated because of proven act of sexual harassment by
the internal committee. Dissolution of the Pastoral Committee is
also not completely denied. It is not explained on behalf of
plaintiff that as to how come terminated presbyter and a
dissolved Pastoral Committee can authorize anyone to institute
any suit or to represent in any suit. Hence, the institution of the
suit by the properly authorized person is prima facie found to be
doubtful.
13. It is not denied on part of plaintiff that Rev. Mohit H.
Hitter vide order dated 05.06.2024, Ld. Civil Judge, South-West
in a civil suit has already restrained from restraining the
incumbent or newly appointed presbyter from holding religious
service in the Calvary church. Thus, the contention on part of
defendants that passing of any injunction order at this stage with
respect to restraining the defendants from acting upon or
enforcing the transfer order dated 05.03.2026, posting order
dated 09.03.2026 and the other relevant orders shall nullify the
effect of order of Ld. Civil Judge are found tenable.
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 8 of 10
-- 8 of 10 --
14. It is also nowhere mentioned on behalf of plaintiff as to if
any resolution to litigate in the name of church was ever passed.
No submissions on behalf of plaintiff regarding passing of any
resolution for filing of present suit on behalf of plaintiff church
further strengthen the contention on part of defendants that
present suit is only a personal representation and not a
congregational one and that the present suit is filed by Rev.
Mohit H. Hitter just to get the order dated 05.06.2024 of the Ld.
Civil Judge, South-West nullify.
15. The defendant no.1, 2 and 3 herein are the Bishop Diocese
of Delhi (the Church of North India); executive committee
Diocese of Delhi and the Diocesan counsel, Diocese of Delhi
respectively. Accordingly, the contentions on part of the
defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 are found acceptable that passing of any
restraint order at this stage may amount to interference in the
religious affairs of the defendants.
16. From the contentions, it appears that plaintiff has
deliberately not disclosed all the material facts. In view of the
above discussed fact, the court is of considered opinion that the
plaintiff has failed to establish any prima facie case and to show
that it shall suffer irreparable loss in case restraint orders against
the defendants are not granted at this stage. On the other hand,
defendants and other family members of church may suffer
injury in case defendants are restrained from taking any
administrative action or passing any appropriate orders in
consonance with the established procedures/legal provisions in
the welfare of the plaintiff church/its members.
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 9 of 10
-- 9 of 10 --
17. In view of above, present application seeking interim
injunction against the defendants stands disposed of as not
allowed.
18. It is pertinent to mention that the observations made
hereinabove are prima facie and shall not constitute any
expression of final opinion on merits of this case.
(Announced in the open Court
on 09th June, 2026)
(Meenu Kaushik)
DJ-03, New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi
CS 202/2026 Calvary Church v. Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Swarup & Ors. Page 10 of 10
-- 10 of 10 --