Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, praying for striking the plaint in O.S.No.6140 of 2014 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, off the Suit Register.

2. I have heard Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.6140 of 2014 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai against the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and the elected members of its Church Council, praying for the following reliefs:-

(d) for a mandatory injunction directing the First Defendant to call for delegates from the 11th Defendant church for the Synod Continuation Committee for the Triennium 2013-2016 of the First Defendant and
(e) for costs of this suit."

4. Upon receipt of the summons in the suit, the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and its elected Church Council members who are arrayed as Defendants 1 to 9 in the suit have come up with the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution contending that the suit is an abuse of the process of law.

5. The disputes relating to the election of office bearers to the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, are never ending and they have a chequered history. There have been several litigations in several courts, one of which landed up before me in Civil Revision Petition C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010, while sitting at Madurai. In paragraph 27 of the order passed by me, in C.R.P.(MD) No.2385 of 2010 reported in Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin VS. The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church reported in [2011(1) CTC 395], I had tabulated the number of cases filed by various persons in various courts throughout the State, depending upon where the parties could successfully hoodwink the courts to grant ex parte interim orders. It will be useful to extract paragraph 27 of the order passed by me in the said decision. Hence it is extracted as follows:-

7. Despite the above direction, the respondents 1 and 2 have taken a misadventure by filing a suit on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, taking a specious plea that the general directions issued by me are all of no significance any more in the light of an order passed by the Supreme Court holding that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act would not apply to the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church.

8. But a careful look at the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8458 of 2014, dated 4.9.2014, would show that the said decision arose out of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, confirming an order of the single Judge (to which I was not a party) holding that as per the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, no salary can be paid to the elected office bearers and that therefore all the salaries paid in the past should be recovered from them. In other words, the Supreme Court was not concerned with any election dispute to the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church. Irrespective of whether Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act is applicable to the society or not, the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a dispute does not stand ousted. The order passed by me in Rt.Rev. Dr.H.A. Martin VS. The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church reported in [2011(1) CTC 395] was for the purpose of preventing the members of the society from indulging in forum shopping by filing suits in various courts all over the State. The pattern of litigation in the society is that if one member filed a suit in Kanyakumari and failed to obtain an interim order to put on hold the election, another member will file a suit in Chengalpattu and test the waters there. Such a practice actually showed the system of administration of justice in poor light. Therefore, I was constrained to pass an order in C.R.P.(MD) No.2535 of 2010 that it is only the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli where the head office of the society is situate, which will have jurisdiction to entertain any suit. This direction had nothing to do with the applicability of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.