Madras High Court
J.M.Richard vs The Church Of South India Synod on 14 December, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.12.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN C.R.P. (PD) Nos.3961, 4026, 4027 and 4035 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2011 C.R.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011:
J.M.Richard ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Church of South India Synod,
rep. by its General Secretary.
2.The Synod of the Church of
South India,
rep. by its General Secretary.
3.The Synod Executive Committee,
rep. by its General Secretary.
4.The Church of South India Trust
Association,
rep. by its Secretary.
5.The Karnataka Central Diocese
Church of South India,
rep. by its Secretary.
6.Mr.Samuel Edwin
7.Mr.Oomen Samuel
8.Mr.Clint William
9.Mr.David George ... Respondents
C.R.P (PD) No.4026 of 2011:
1.Most.Rev.S.Vasanthakumar
2.Most Rev.S.Vasanthakumar
3.The Karnataka Central Diocesan
Council,
rep. by its President,
Most.Rev.S.Vasanthakumar
4.The Executive Committee of Karnataka
Central Diocese, rep. by
its Chairman, Bishop. ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Mrs.Mary Susheela
2.M.M.Philip
3.Rt.Rev.G.Devakadasham
4.Rev.V.P.Ashwal
5.The Karnataka Central Diocese,
rep. by its Secretary
Rev.John Milton
6.Samuel Edwin
7.Bernard Hereford
8.Rev.John Milton ... Respondents.
C.R.P (PD) No.4027 of 2011:
1.Most.Rev.S.Vasanthakumar
2.Most Rev.S.Vasanthakumar
3.The Karnataka Central Diocesan
Council,
rep. by its President,
Most.Rev.S.Vasanthakumar
4.The Executive Committee of Karnataka
Central Diocese, rep. by
its Chairman, Bishop. ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Mrs.Mary Susheela
2.M.M.Philip
3.Rt.Rev.G.Devakadasham
4.Rev.V.P.Ashwal
5.The Karnataka Central Diocese,
rep. by its Secretary
Rev.John Milton
6.Samuel Edwin
7.Bernard Hereford
8.Rev.John Milton
9.The Church of South India,
rep. by its General Secretary
Mr.M.M.Philip ... Respondents.
C.R.P (PD) No.4035 of 2011
1.The Karnataka Central Diocese
rep. by its Secretary,
Rev.John Milton
2.Rev.John Milton ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Mrs.Mary Susheela
2.Most.Rev.S.Vasanthakumar
3.M.M.Philip
4.Rt.Rev.G.Devakadasham
5.Rev.V.P.Ashwal
6.Most Rev.S.Vasanthakumar
7.The Karnataka Central Diocese
Council
rep. by its President,
Most Rev.S.Vasanthakumar.
8.Samuel Edwin
9.Bernard Hereford
10.The Executive Committee of
Karnataka Central Diocese,
rep. by its Chairman
11.The Church of South India,
rep. by its General Secretary,
Mr.M.M.Philip ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.3961 of 2011 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 28.9.2011 passed in I.A.No.15941 of 2011 in O.S.No.7443 of 2011 on the file of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
Civil Revision Petition No.4026 of 2011 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the maintainability of the suit before the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.7479 of 2011.
Civil Revision Petition No.4027 of 2011 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decretal order of the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 29.9.2011 made in I.A.No.16075 of 2011 in O.S.No.7479 of 2011.
Civil Revision Petition No.4035 of 2011 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decretal order dated 29.9.2011 (amended as per order dated 24.11.2011 made in M.P.No.3 of 2011 in CRP PD No.4035 of 2011) made in I.A.No.16075 of 2011 in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 on the file of the Court of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
C.R.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011:
For petitioners : Mr.A.Immanuel For respondents : Mr.V.Selvaraj, for R.1 to R.4 Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, for R.5 and R.6 Mr.R.Gandhi, S.C., for Mr.K.Vijayakumar, for R.7, R.8 and R.9 C.R.P (PD) Nos.4026 and 4027 of 2011:
For petitioners : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, S.C., for M/s.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar For respondents : Mr.AV.K.Ezhilmani, for R.1 Mr.C.Robert Bruce, for R.2 and R.3 Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, for R.5, R.6 and R.8 Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, S.C., for Mr.K.Vaithyanathan, for R.4 and R.7 C.R.P (PD) No.4035 of 2011:
For petitioners : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal For respondents : Mr.AV.K.Ezhilmani, for R.1 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, S.C., for Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, for R.2, R.6, R.7 and R.10 Mr.V.Selvaraj, for Mr.C.Robert Bruce, for R.3, R.4 and R.11 COMMON 0RDER C.R.P.(PD).No.3961 of 2011 has been filed by the 7th defendant in O.S.No.7443 of 2011 before the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the order of interim injunction granted by the said Court in I.A.No.15941 of 2011. Respondents 7 to 9 in this civil revision petition have filed the said suit and obtained an order of interim injunction. Defendants 1 to 6 in the said suit are respondents 1 to 6.
2. C.R.P (PD) No.4026 of 2011 was filed by defendants 1, 6, 7 and 11 in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 before the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to reject the plaint in the said suit. The plaintiff in the said suit is the first respondent and the other defendants are respondents 2 to 9.
3. C.R.P. (PD) No.4027 of 2011 has been filed by the very same petitioners in C.R.P (PD) No.4026 of 2011 challenging the order of interim injunction granted by the said Court made in I.A.No.15075 of 2011 at the instance of the first respondent / plaintiff.
4. C.R.P (PD) No.4035 of 2011 has been filed by defendants 5 and 10 in the suit in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 referred to above challenging the very same order of interim injunction granted in the said suit. The plaintiff in the said suit is the first respondent and the other defendants are arrayed as other respondents.
5. O.S.No.7443 of 2011 was filed to declare that the petitioner in CR.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011, who is the 7th defendant in the said suit, is not qualified and incompetent and ineligible to contest for any post at the pastorate level, area council, diocesan council in the Karnataka Central Diocese and contesting as a representative to the Synod of the Church of South India and management Committee of the fourth respondent therein and for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 therein or their men agent or anybody claiming through them in any manner allowing the petitioner herein to participate in any of the post pertaining to the office bearers of the 5th defendant therein.
6. The allegation in the said suit was that the petitioner / 7th defendant in the said suit is the member of the Rice Memorial Church of the Karnataka Central Diocese. He was already a member of the management committee of the CSITA. During the period when he was holding the said post, he misused his office for personal gain. He has also begun to show favouritism to his supporters and harass those who did not fall in line with his way of thinking. He indulged himself in financial irregularities and mismanagement of properties. In paragraph 18 of the plaint, it is stated as follows:-
18. The plaintiffs submits that the 7th defendant though being in the form of a trustee who had to take care of the properties and fund in the Karnataka Central Diocese, Synod and the CSITA at large has failed in his duty as a guardian of the duties given into his hands but has only misused for his own personal gains etc. Further if he is allowed to contest the election for the post of diocesan treasurer for a biennium 2011-2013 and if the 7th defendant wins the election then serious prejudice will be caused to the diocese and the church at large as he will then try to get himself nominated to the Synod Church of South India (the 2nd defendant) and also become the member of the 4th defendant and start continuing the same acts earlier done by him putting the entire Church of South India into serious prejudice.
7. To invoke the jurisdiction of the Court at Chennai, in paragraph 19, it has been pleaded as follows:-
19. The present suit is filed before this Honble Court in view of the provision contained in the Constitution of the Church of South India at Rule 4 Chapter XI. The Office of the CSI Synod is situated within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court and therefore the present suit is being filed before this Honble Court. Further the prayer is also against the defendants who are here in Chennai.
8. In paragraph 20 of the plaint, cause of action has been set out, which is extracted here under:-
20. The cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai where the defendant No.1 to 4 are having its office at Chennai when the 7th defendant started to hold the post of the Vice President for the biennium 2001-2003 and 2003-2005 and also the post of Diocesan Treasurer for the biennium 2005-2007 and 2007-2009 and when the 7th defendant was also a member of the management committee of the CSITA and when various criminal complaint are pending against the 7th defendant and when the 7th defendant had misused the office and the post and the powers given for his own personal gains and motives when he has filed his nomination for the post of Diocesan Treasurer for the biennium 2011-2013 in Karnataka Central Diocese Church of South India, the 5th defendant herein.
9. In I.A.No.15941 of 2011, the interim injunction that has been prayed for was restraining the petitioner / 7th defendant from in any manner participating or contesting either for officers post or for the post of representative to the CSI Synod or to any other committee in Karnataka Central Diocese Council election to be held between 5.10.2011 and 8.10.2011 at Bishop Cotton School Auditorium or in any other date pending disposal of the suit. An order of interim injunction was granted on 27.10.2011 by the above referred Court, which is extracted hereunder:-
Heard. Perused the documents and affidavit. On keen perusal of the plaint documents No.19, 20, 26, 34 to 37 shows that there are several complaints and FIRs are pending against 7th respondent. It is against the Chapter II Rule 10 of the Constitution of the Church of South India. Prima facie case made out, and balance of convenience also lies upon the petitioner ad-interim injunction granted against the 7th respondent till 27.X.2011. Issue notice to respondents comply O.39 Rule 3. To set aside the said order of interim injunction, as stated already, C.R.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011 has been filed.
10. The main grounds of attack by the petitioner in the above referred revision are
(a) Respondents 7, 8 and 9 viz., the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7443 of 2011 are not members of the Karnataka Central Diocese Church of South India and hence, they cannot challenge the election to the Diocese Council. That apart, they have not established their interest in the Church of South India.
(b) The order of interim injunction refers about Chapter II Rule 10, which has no application and hence, the reference about the same in the order of interim injunction is unknown.
(c) Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. was not complied with. The affidavit in support of the interim injunction application was not sent or furnished.
(d) Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. was not complied with.
(e) Leave of the Court was not obtained under Section 20 C.P.C.
(f) The election is to be held for the post in Karnataka Central Diocese in Bangalore as per the Constitution of Karnataka Central Diocese. The same cannot be challenged before the City Civil Court, Chennai, which has no jurisdiction.
(g) Respondents 1 to 4 viz., defendants 1 to 4 are not necessary parties to the suit. No relief has been sought for against them. They have been added for creating jurisdiction before the City Civil Court, Chennai.
11. C.R.P (PD) No.4026 of 2011 has been filed to reject the plaint in O.S.No.7479 of 2011. C.R.P. (PD) No.4027 of 2011 has been filed challenging the order of interim injunction granted in the said suit in I.A.No.16075 of 2011.
12. One Mrs.Mary Susheela, the first respondent in the above revisions, has filed the said suit in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 for the following reliefs:-
(i) for a declaration declaring that the Area Council of the Bangalore City Area held on 10.9.2011 in gross violation of the constitutional provisions and procedures of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the Karnataka Central Diocese of the Church of South India is illegal, unconstitutional and ab initio void;
(ii) for a declaration declaring that all resolutions taken and passed by the defendant No.11 in respect of the above mentioned properties in contravention of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the Karnataka Central Diocese of the Church of South India is illegal, unconstitutional and ab initio void;
(iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 12 from constituting and / or conducting any of the proceedings or meetings of the XXI Bi-ennial Diocesan Council scheduled to be held between 5th and 8th October 2011 at the Bishop Cotton Girls School Auditorium, St. Marks Road, Bangalore 560 001, on any other date or place in the interests of justice and equity; and
(iv) Costs of the suit.
13. The necessity for filing the said suit was set out in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 28 of the plaint, which are extracted hereunder:-
12. The plaintiff submits that in the recently concluded Bangalore City Area Council which was held on 10.9.2011 the City Area Council was not represented by members elected from the Hudson Memorial Church, Bangalore of the defendant No.5. Therefore, the Bangalore City Civil Area Council has been illegally constituted and conducted without the requisite representation of members to the Area Council and therefore it is incomplete, inadequate, illegal and unconstitutional.
13. Hence the entire the proceedings of the Bangalore City Area Council and the election of Rev.M.B.Kotian as Area Chairman of Bangalore City Area Council are illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
14. Therefore the participation of Rev.M.B.Kotian in the Executive Committee as the Bangalore City Area representative for the bi-ennium 2011-2013 is illegal and unconstitutional and will have far reaching consequences on the very constitution and membership of the Executive Committee which will be elected by the XXI Bi-ennial Diocesan Council.
28. The plaintiff humbly submits that if the XXI Bi-ennial Diocesan Council is constituted and all the illegal, deliberate fraud and unconstitutional decisions and resolutions are approved by the Apex Body of the Diocese, it would not only cause immense irreparable damage, loss and wastage to the Church but would be detrimental to the interests of the Church and in deprivation of the rights of the members of all Churches in the Diocese. The very purpose of administering and governing the Diocese in accordance with the Constitutional provisions and procedures would be defeated if the defendants No.1 to 12 are allowed to act in an autocratic manner and accord legal approval for all the illegal and unconstitutional decisions taken by them. Therefore the plaintiff are constrained to approach this Honble Court to seek redressal of their grievances.
14. In paragraph 29 of the plaint, it is stated as to why the suit has been filed at Chennai and the same is extracted hereunder:-
29. Since the office of the CSI Synod is situated at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14 which is within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Honble Court. The present suit is filed before this Honble Court in view of the provisions contained in the Constitution of the Church of South India at Rule 4 of Chapter XI, which states that all members of the Church also agree that whenever any legal proceedings are to be instituted and in which the Officers of the Diocese or Synod are made parties, such suit shall be instituted only in such courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Diocese or of the Synod and / or its Secretariate is at that time situated. However the defendants No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are ordinarily having their offices at Bangalore and hence leave to sue has been filed along with this plaint. No other suit is pending on the same cause of action within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence this suit.
15. The cause of action has been set out in paragraph 31, which is extracted here under:-
31. The cause of action arose on 25.11.2010 the date on which the Executive Committee approved all the illegal decisions and subsequently on 3.8.2011 the date on which the defendant No.10 issued the Meeting Notice to convene the XXI Biennial Diocesan Council and all subsequent dates.
16. As far as the application in I.A.No.16075 of 2011 is concerned, the interim injunction that has been sought for is extracted here under:-
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents / defendants 1 to 12 from constituting and / or conducting any of the proceedings or meetings of the XXI Bi-ennial Diocesan Council scheduled to be held between 5th and 8th October 2011 at the Bishop Cotton Girls School Auditorium, St. Marks Road, Bangalore 560 001, on any other date or place in the interests of justice and equity and pass such other, consequential relief that this Honble Court may be pleased to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case..
17. The orders passed by the learned trial Judge is extracted hereunder:-
Heard. Perused the documents and affidavit, on perusal of the plaint documents No.1 to 30 shows that the present Executive Committee of the Diocese which has been duly elected and functioning for the bi-ennium 2009 to 2011 has been involved in high level corruption and has passed illegal and unconditional resolutions and taken such decisions which have caused immense damage and financial loss to the Diocese, one of the deliberate and manifest fraud committed by the defendants No.5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 and the illegal decisions taken by their is evidenced from documents No.14 and 17, which are copies of the resolution dated 8.9.2010 passed by the Board of Management of Bishop Cotton Boys School and Girls School respectively and the resolution passed by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 25.11.2010 and terms the document No.23 shows the Agenda dated 3.8.2011 circulated by the defendant No.10 for XXI Bi-ennial Diocese Council, prima facie case made out and balance of convenience also lies upon the petitioners ad-interim injunction granted against the respondents till 28.10.2011. Issue notice to respondents comply order 39 Rule 3.
18. In the said revision in C.R.P (PD) No.4027 of 2011, the following main grounds have been raised:-
(a) CSI and Karnataka Central Diocese Church of South India are unregistered bodies and hence, a suit cannot be instituted except in accordance with order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.
(b) Since most of the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court, leave has to be granted under Section 20 C.P.C.
(c) The City Civil Court at Chennai has no jurisdiction to decide the issue.
19. Defendants 5 to 10 in the above referred suit have filed a separate civil revision petition in C.R.P (PD) No.4035 of 2011. In this revision also, they are challenging the order of interim injunction granted in the said suit in I.A.No.16095 of 2011.
20. The grounds that have been taken in the revision are
(a) Stalling the election which was already set in motion by issuance of notification is bad.
(b) City Civil Court, Chennai has no jurisdiction to decide the suit,
(c) Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. was not followed.
(d) Since most of the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court, leave has to obtained as required under Section 20 C.P.C.
21. The plaintiff in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 has filed a counter affidavit. The averments made in the said counter affidavit and also the contention that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for her are
(a) In transfer petition Nos.775 and 776 of 1996, the Honble Apex Court has held that the suits shall be instituted only in such Courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Diocese or Synod and its Secretariat is at that time situated. The Honble Apex Court in the said petitions has stated that Civil Courts at Chennai are competent to decide the suits of this nature.
(b) As the suit in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 on the file of XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai was filed against the Moderator, Dy.Moderator, General Secretary and CSI Church of South India and Synod, the suit has to be instituted only at Chennai.
(c) It is not correct to state the Synod has been purposely arrayed as a party only for instituting the suit at Chennai. Synod is the apex body which is empowered under Constitution to take collective steps to guide the Diocese to function in accordance with Constitution.
(d) Leave has been obtained to file the suit.
22. Respondents 7 to 10 have taken a plea in their counter affidavit viz.,
(a) The City Civil Court at Chennai has got jurisdiction to try the suit.
(b) Sufficient cause of action has been shown to lay the suit.
(c) Suit is not filed as representative capacity, but it is filed by three individuals.
(d) To set aside the order of interim injunction, Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked.
23. On behalf of plaintiffs in O.S.No.7443 of 2011, the following contentions have been raised through Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel
(a) Rule 4 Chapter XI of the Constitution of the Church of South India empowers the plaintiffs to file the suit at Chennai and hence, the City Civil Court at Chennai has got jurisdiction.
(b) Since all the parties are bound to obey the Constitution of the Church of South India, in view of Rule 4 of Chapter XI, the Court at Chennai has got jurisdiction.
(c) An order of interim injunction once granted, it has to be vacated by filing an application or the parties if aggrieved over the same, could file a civil miscellaneous appeal against the same and hence, the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
24. On the backdrop of the above facts, now it has to be considered as to whether the civil revision petitions that have been filed by the respective parties are maintainable before the Civil Court at Chennai and whether the order of interim injunction granted in the above referred suits are liable to be set aside.
25. Though the respective learned Senior Counsels / learned Counsels have raised several contentions which were set out earlier, the first and foremost contention that has to be considered is whether the Civil Court at Chennai has got jurisdiction over the matter in issue.
26. As stated already, the suit in O.S.No.7443 of 2011 was filed to declare that the petitioner in the said revision viz., 7th defendant in the suit is not qualified and incompetent and ineligible to contest for any post at the pastorate level, area council, diocesan council in the Karnataka Central Diocese and contesting as a representative to the Synod of the Church of South India and management of the fourth defendant association and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the said suit from allowing the 7th defendant to participate in any of the post pertaining to the office bearers of the Karnataka Central Diocese Church of South India. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit in O.S.No.7443 of 2011 is that the petitioner in C.R.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011, viz., the 7th defendant in the said suit is now contesting the election for the post of Diocesan Treasurer in Karnataka Central Diocese Church of South India. Rule 3, 6 and 14 of Chapter VIII of the Constitution of Church of South India reads as follows:-
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 comformity with Chapter IV Rule 4.
6. Except as provided under Chapter IX Rule 15, the Diocesan Council shall be ultimate financial authority of the Church in its diocese and in all matters concerning its internal administration.
14. All the members of the Church hereby agree that if after exhausting all remedies provided in this constitution for setting claims / disputes, any legal proceedings are to be instituted by such member and in which the officers of the Diocese are made parties, such suit shall be instituted only in a court within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Diocese is at that time situated (S.84:40) The above rules in Chapter VIII of the Constitution of the Church of South India would disclose that Diocese Council is a separate body. As stated already, the plaintiffs in the said suit are trying to question the 7th defendant in the said suit in contesting the election for the post of Diocesan Treasurer. Rule 14, which was extracted above clearly makes out that suit shall be instituted only in Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Diocese is at that time situated, which means the Courts at Bangalore.
27. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents in one of the civil revisions contended that Rule 4 of Chapter XI envisages that suit could be instituted within the territorial jurisdiction of the Office of the Diocese or the Synod. It is further contended that in view of the relief that has been sought for in the suit referred to above and also in view of the fact that Synod is a party to the suit, the suit that has been instituted before the City Civil Court at Chennai is perfectly maintainable.
28. Before considering the said contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents, it would be useful to extract Rule 4 of Chapter XI of the Constitution of the Church of South India and the same is extracted here under:-
" 4. Subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all members of the Church also agree that whenever any legal proceedings are to be instituted and in which the officers of the Diocese or Synod are made parties, such suit shall be instituted only in such courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Diocese or of the Synod and / or its Secretariat is at that time situated."
The opening words in Rule 4, which was extracted above would clearly show that the said Rule is " subject to the other provisions of the Constitution of Church of South India ", which means and includes Rule 14 of Chapter 8 which was extracted above. The said rule clearly stipulates that any legal proceedings in which the Officers of the Diocese are made parties, such suits shall be instituted only in such Courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Diocese is at that time situated. Admittedly, the Diocese is situated at Bangalore and not in Chennai.
29. That apart, Rule 15 of Chapter IX envisages that the Synod shall deal with matters of common interest to the whole Church of South India and it shall leave the Diocesan Councils to deal with the internal affairs of each diocese. Rule 15 of Chapter IX of the Constitution of the Church of South India is, thus extracted here under:-
" 15. 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 diocese 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."
In the case on hand, the election dispute is the internal affairs of Karnataka Central Diocese Church of South India and hence, the Synod has no role to play.
30. Considering the over all circumstances referred to above, the relief that has been sought for, the issue raised in both the suits and the pleadings raised in both the suits would amply establish that the Synod has been made as a party only to bring the matter within the purview of the City Civil Court, Chennai. No cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Chennai.
31. In similar circumstances, this Court in the judgment reported in 2009 (2) CTC 631 M.IIsaac, S/o.Muthaih v. The Church of South India has held so, after considering the entire constitution of the Church of South India.
32. Yet another attempt that has been made by the learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents in C.R.P (PD) Nos.4026 and 4027 of 2011 and also the counsel for respondents in C.R.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011, is that the Honble Apex Court has held in a transfer petition that the Court at Chennai has got competency to decide the matter. I am unable to accept the said contention raised in this regard. In the decision reported in 2009 (2) CTC 631 M.Isaac, S/o.Muthaih v. The Church of South India, the said contention has already been dealt with by this Court in the following manner:-
" 22. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in earlier occasions in Transfer Petition (C) Nos.775-776 of 1996, the Supreme Court has directed transfer of O.S.No.150/96 pending in the City Civil Court, Secunderabad (A.P.) to the City Civil Court, Madras, to be tried along with other suit pending on its file and submitted that the situs of Synod is the vital factor while determining the territorial jurisdiction. The facts and circumstances of the said transfer petition (C) Nos.775-776 of 1996 before the Supreme Court and the nature of dispute involved is not known. Under such circumstances, the said decision cannot be taken as a precedent to conclude that the suit could be maintained in Chennai."
Thus, this contention is also liable to be rejected.
33. In view of the discussions made above and the finding arrived at by me, I am of the considered view that the other issue whether the suit has been filed without seeking leave of the Court under Section 20 C.P.C. or the suit has not been properly laid and leave has not been obtained as per Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. do not require for any consideration.
34. The next contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioners and other respondents apart from the plaintiffs in both the suits, is that the learned trial Judge has not applied his mind at all while granting the order of interim injunction in the two suits referred to above and hence, the same are liable to be set aside.
35. Before adverting to the said contention, it would be useful to extract the prayer for interim injunction made in I.A.No.15941 of 2011 in O.S.No.7443 of 2011 and the same is extracted hereunder:-
" ... to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the 7th respondent / defendant in any manner participating or contesting either for officers post or for the post of representative to the CSI Synod or to any other committee in Karnataka Central Diocese council election to be held between 5.10.2011 to 8.10.2011 at Bishop Cotton School auditorium or in any other date or in any other place pending disposal of the suit."
The order of interim injunction granted is extracted hereunder:-
" Heard. Perused the documents and affidavit. On keen perusal of the plaint documents No.19, 20, 26, 34 to 37 shows that there are several complaints and FIRs are pending against 7th respondent, it is against the Chapter II Rule 10 of the Constitution of the Church of South India. Prima facie case made out and balance of convenience also lies upon the petitioner. Ad interim injunction granted against the 7th respondent till 27.10.2011. Issue notice to respondents comply O.39 Rule 3."
Except saying that a perusal of document Nos.19, 20, 26, 34 to 37 would show that there are complaints and FIRs pending against the petitioner in C.R.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011, who happened to be the 7th respondent in the application and further saying that it is against Chapter II Rule 10 of the Constitution of Church of South India, there is nothing to show that on what ground the order of interim injunction was granted by the learned trial Judge.
36. Though in normal circumstances, the order of interim injunction cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and should drive the parties to approach the same Court by filing an application for vacating the said order of to file a civil miscellaneous appeal against the said order, in the present case on hand, I am not inclined to do so since, the suit has been filed with ulterior motive in Court of choice knowing fully well that the City Civil Court at Chennai has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. Alternative remedy may be a bar to entertain a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, however, if the order was passed without jurisdiction and the Court in which the suit has been filed has no jurisdiction under law, the interim injunction granted by the said Court without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside.
37. In A.I.R.2006 SUPREME COURT 1474 - Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Anr. v. Praveen Kumar singh, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be restrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct the errors of jurisdiction. But, when a Court asks itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction and it will still be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The failure to render the necessary finding to support his order would also be a jurisdictional error, which is liable to be corrected. In the case on hand, the order granting interim injunction which was extracted above would clearly reveal that no reason whatsoever has been given to support his order by the learned trial Judge. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the said judgment supports the case of the revision petitioners.
38. The Madurai Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2010 (4) C.T.C. 690 - Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited v. R.Srinivasan., has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked --
(a) to prevent abuse of process of law;
(b) to prevent miscarriage of justice;
(c) to prevent grave injustice;
(d) to establish both administrative as well as judicial power of High Court.
In the case on hand, much has been established that the initiation of the suit by the plaintiffs is a clear abuse of process of law and hence, to prevent grave injustice, the order under revision in C.R.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011 is liable to be set aside.
39. In the case of Ganapathy Subramanian v. S.Ramalingam and others reported in (2007) 7 M.L.J. 13, this Court has held that only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals resulting in grave injustice to a party.
40. In the decision reported in (2010) 1 M.L.J. 1056 - S.Gunaseelam v. C.Valarmathi and others., while dealing with the order made under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., this Court has held that the disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., but, however, the claim in the present suit is not about the falsity of the claim made by the contesting respondents. But, even the fundamental issue pertaining to jurisdiction has been raised.
41. If the trial Court on the basis of the some documents filed, has come to a prima facie conclusion in favour of the plaintiff and if an order of interim injunction has been granted, the same shall not be interfered with in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, whether the order of the trial Court is right or wrong, has to be decided only before the trial Court by filing an application for vacating the order of interim injunction or by filing a civil miscellaneous appeal questioning the same. However, if the trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit or the jurisdiction was improperly exercised in a manner not known to law, definitely this Court has got power to correct the said order exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
42. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has not assigned any reason whatsoever for granting an order of interim injunction especially on the backdrop that the suit in O.S.No.7443 of 2011 itself is without jurisdiction before the said Court.
43. Even in respect of an order of interim injunction granted in I.A.No.16075 of 2011 in O.S.No.7479 of 2011, the discussions made above would apply.
44. Considering the overall circumstances referred to above, I am of the considered view that the orders under revisions made in I.A.Nos.15941 and 16075 of 2011 in O.S.Nos.7443 and 7479 of 2011 are liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside and the revisions in C.R.P (PD) Nos.3961, 4027 and 4035 of 2011 stand allowed.
45. As far as C.R.P (PD) No.4026 of 2011 is concerned, the same has been filed to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. In view of the reasonings stated above, I am of the considered view that instead of striking off the said suit, the plaint could be returned to the plaintiff in the said suit and she is at liberty to move the suit before the appropriate forum and the revision is ordered accordingly.
46. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in C.R.P (PD) No.4035 of 2011 contended that if the election is not conducted and the council has not elected fresh representatives, the existing representatives would represent the Diocese and filing the suit and the getting an order of interim injunction is only for the said purpose. He has also pointed out that in case the new council cannot be convened within three months from the expiry of the term of the old council, the Bishop / Officer shall report the matter to the Synod which shall take steps for the proper administration of the diocese. In view of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, the election could not be conducted in time and I hope, the Synod will definitely take a reasonable decision considering the said issue.
All the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
sbi To The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai