Madras High Court
Annajothi vs S.Jainston Sigamony on 2 January, 2013
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 2.1.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2410 and 2411 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 to 7 of 2012 1. Annajothi 2. H.Selvin Kanaga Rose 3. P.Cyril Raj 4. T.Samuvel Raj 5. P.Johnson 6. A.Wiselin Jayakumar 7. R.John Leeban 8. Suguna Bai (Petitioners 2 to 8 impleaded as party petitioners vide order of the court dated 17.7.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in CRP PD No.2410 of 2012 and M.P.No.3 of 2012 in CRP PD No.2411 of 2012) Petitioners vs. 1. S.Jainston Sigamony 2. The Bishop, Kanyakumari CSI Diocese, No.1, Dennison Street, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3. The General Secretary, Church of South India, No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. 4. The Moderator, Church of South India, No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Respondents Civil Revision Petition No.2410 of 2012 is to strike down the plaint in O.S.No.3597 of 2012 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Civil Revision Petition No.2411 of 2012 is against the order dated 20.6.2012 in I.A.No.8646 of 2012 in O.S.No.3597 of 2012 on the file of the XVI Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For petitioners : Mr.S.Subbiah For R1 :Mr.Kalyanaraman For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.A.R.Nixon COMMON ORDER
First defendant in O.S.No.3507 of 2012 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. C.R.P. PD No.2410 of 2012 was filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.3507 of 2012 and C.R.P.PD No.2411 of 2012 was filed challenging the order passed in the application in I.A.No.8646 of 2012 in O.S.No.3507 of 2012.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the first respondent/plaintiff challenging the election held for the Seynamvilai CSI Church Committee for the triennium 2012-2015 on 4.3.2012 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from permitting the elected persons to participate in the Church Committee Meeting of CSI Seynamvilai Church and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing the membership of the plaintiff in the Seynamvilai CSI Church and submitted that having regard to the elections mentioned in the plaint as well as the relief prayed for, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Kanyakumari Munsif Court and therefore, the suit filed before the City Civil Court is not maintainable and the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction and therefore, the plaint has to be struck off. He further submitted that the court below, without any application of mind granted the order of ad interim injunction by passing a non-speaking order and therefore, the order of ad interim injunction is liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgment rendered in O.A.No.1181 of 2007 and Application Nos.6913 and 7394 to 7396 of 2007 in C.S.No.942 of 2007 on the file of this court on the Original Side dated 11.12.2007 and the order passed in C.R.P. PD Nos.3589 to 3600 and 3733 of 2012 dated 10.10.2011 and the judgment in J.M.RICHARD v. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA SYNOD ((2012) 3 MLJ 394), M.ISAAC, S/o. MUTHAIH v. THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA (2009 (2) CTC 631) and ARUVIPURAM DHARMA PARIPALAN YOGAM & OTHERS v. K.KARUNAKARAN (2012-1-LW 252) in support of his contention.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the plaint cannot be struck off on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction and whether the court has got jurisdiction or not can be decided by filing application before the court below and without resorting to the same, the revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has to consider the entire plaint allegations to arrive at a conclusion whether the court has got jurisdiction or not and if the entire plaint allegations are taken into consideration, it can be seen that the City Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the issue and as per the Constitution of CSI Synod Bye-laws, the Synod and defendants 3 and 4 are having office at Royapettah and they are parties and the second defendant is coming under the control of defendants 3 and 4 and the CSI Synod is the Apex Body and therefore, though the election was conducted at Bethelpuram the Head Office of the Synod is situated at Chennai which is having control over the Kanyakumari CSI Diocese, the City Civil Court has got jurisdiction and to entertain the suit and therefore, it cannot be contended that the court has no jurisdiction. He further submitted that the order granting interim order of injunction cannot be challenged as it is a speaking order and the court below, with respect to documents 3 to 5, came to the conclusion that elections held on 4.3.2012 was not conducted in a lawful manner and as per the Constitution of CSI and also the second defendant dismissed the petition without any valid and lawful reason and therefore, when the reasons are stated while granting ad interim injunction, the only remedy available to the revision petitioner is to approach the court below challenging the order of injunction or file an appeal and hence, the revision challenging the interim injunction is not maintainable.
4. To appreciate the contention of both the parties, we will have to see the plaint allegations. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that whenever an application is filed to reject the plaint, the court has to consider the averments made in the plaint to arrive at a conclusion and other materials should not be taken into consideration, unless they are admitted. A reading of the plaint makes it clear that the entire cause of action arose at Bethelpuram and the election was conducted on 4.3.2012 for the Seynamvilai Church and except by impleading defendants 3 and 4, no averment has been made to clothe the jurisdiction on the City Civil Court. Admittedly, the election was conducted for the Seynamvilai Church Committee for the triennium 2012-2015 on 4.3.2012 at Bethelpuram and in that election, the revision petitioner was elected and it is alleged that the entire election process was against the bye-laws of the CSI Kanyakumari Diocese and the election petition was filed on 15.3.2012 before the second defendant having office at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and he confirmed the election by its order dated 17.8.2012 and appeal lies to the CSI Synod and it is not sated that appeal has been filed before the CSI Synod, having office at Chennai and under the cause of action paragraph also it is not stated that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Chennai Court except saying that CSI Synod which is the Apex Body is having office at Chennai and therefore, the Civil Civil Court has got jurisdiction. This court had occasion to deal with the similar circumstances in the judgment reported in 2009 (2) CTC 631 wherein this court has held as follows:-
"14. By a careful reading of CSI Rules, it is abundantly clear that Synod, which is the highest representative body of CSI shall deal with matters of common interest and those which affect the relationship of the Dioceses to one another and shall leave the Diocesan Council to deal with the internal affairs of each Dioceses. The relevant provision is Chapter IX, Rule 15, which reads as under:
"The Synod shall deal with matters of common interest to the whole Church of South India, and with those which affect the relation of the dioceses to one another and to the rest of the universal Church, and shall leave the Diocesan Councils to deal with the internal affairs of each Diocese."
15. Synod being the highest representative body of the CSI, its supreme governing and legislative body deals only with the common interest. As is seen from Chapter IX, Rule 17, the Synod has power to add or otherwise alter the Constitution of CSI. It is the final Authority in all questions of the interpretation of the Constitution of CSI. Chapter VIII-Diocesan Councils and the Rules thereon would also affirm that Synod would deal with the matters of common interest to the Church and the Diocesan Councils is to deal with the matters concerning the particular Diocese.
16. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 7, the normal duty of a Diocesan Council is to deal with matters, which concern only its own Diocese, leaving it to the Synod to deal with matters of common interest to the whole Church. The Diocesan Council of each Dioceses shall make its own Rules and shall state in its own Constitution method of election and deal with all matters concerning the internal administration of representative Dioceses.
17. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 3, every Diocesan Council shall state in its own constitution the necessary qualifications, and method of election or nomination of the lay representatives in it provided that these qualifications shall be in conformity with Chapter IV, Rule 4. As per Rule 5, every Diocesan Council has the power to make Rules and pass resolutions and take executive action for the general management and good Government of the Church in the diocese, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and in particular to those concerning the Synod of the Church.
18. By a careful reading of the Rules under Chapter VIII, it is seen that Diocesan Council has power to frame, amend or alter its own Constitution and the Diocesan Council is to deal with matters, which concern its own Diocese. Each Diocese would exercise the powers and function of administration within its Territory on the basis of its own Constitution. To put it shortly, Tirunelveli Diocese would be governed by its extant Rules Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. The Diocese is governed by its own Rules and its own Constitution. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 3, Diocesan Council shall state in its own Constitution the necessary qualification and method of election. Chapter VIII, Rule 3 reads as under:
"Every Diocesan Council shall state in its own constitution the necessary qualifications, and method of election or nomination of the lay representatives in it provided that these qualifications shall be in conformity with Chapter IV, Rule 4."
It is thus evident that election to Tirunelveli Diocese and method of election or nomination of the lay representatives and election to the Executive Committee shall be in accordance with Tirunelveli CSI Diocese Rules. In conducting of the election to Tirunelveli Diocese Synod has no role to play."
5. In the judgment reported in 2012-1-LW 252 this court has held that when the main relief sought for by the plaintiff is only against the second defendant having office within the jurisdiction of the Nagercoil or Kanyakumari Court and when the main relief cannot be granted by the City Civil Court at Chennai as it has no jurisdiction, the City Civil Court cannot be conferred with jurisdiction on the ground that ancillary relief of permanent injunction has been sought for against some defendants who are having office within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court.
6. In this case also, the main relief is to declare the election held on 4.3.2012 and admittedly, the election was held at Bethelpuram for CSI Church committee, Seynamvilai and the relief of permanent injunction is also against the second defendant from permitting the electoral persons from participating the Church Committee and the second defendant is also having office at Nagercoil and therefore, the City Civil Court has no territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court.
7. Further, in the judgment reported in (2012) 3 MLJ 394, this court has held that Article 227 can be invoked to prevent the abuse of process of law, to prevent the miscarriage of justice, and to prevent the grave injustice and when the court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit or the jurisdiction was improperly exercised in a manner not known to law, this court has got power to correct the said order by exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. In this case, the filing of the suit before the City Civil Court is a clear case of abuse of process of court and it amounts to forum shopping. The first respondent has chosen to file the suit before the City Civil Court, Chennai when no part of the cause of action arose at Chennai within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court. According to me, having regard to the allegations made in the plaint, the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the courts at Kanyakumari District and no part of cause of action arose at Chennai and defendants 3 and 4 have been impleaded only to confer the jurisdiction on the City Civil Court and the relief sought for is also only in respect of the cause of action that arose at Bethelpuram within the jurisdiction of the courts at Kanyakumari and hence, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction.
9. In the result, C.R.P. PD No.2411 of 2012 is allowed and C.R.P. PD No.2410 of 2012 is disposed of by directing the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to return the plaint in O.S.No.3597 of 2012 to the first respondent/plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court. No costs. The connected pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2.1.2013.
Index: Yes.
Internet: Yes.
ssk.
To
1. XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Chennai.
R.S.RAMANATHAN, J.
Ssk.
P.D. ORDER IN C.R.P.(PD) Nos.2410 and 2411 of 2012 Delivered on 2.1.2013