M.P. Jayasekar vs R. Robinson and Others

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—First defendant in O.S. No. 3604 of 2012 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the

revision petitioner. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration that the election held for the post of Church Committee

Members to the CSI Church, Thottavaram, Kanniyakumari District held on 19.2.2012 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining

defendants 5 and 6 who are respondents 5 and 6 herein from permitting the revision petitioner and other elected members of CSI Church,

Thottavaram to participate in the Church Committee Meeting and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing the

membership of the first respondent/plaintiff in the CSI Church, Thottavaram. In that suit, the first respondent/plaintiff also filed application in I.A.

No. 8689 of 2012 for temporary injunction and also prayed for ad interim temporary injunction and the same was granted restraining respondents

5 and 6 from permitting the first defendant viz., the revision petitioner from participating in the Church Committee Meeting of the Diocese and

Council Meeting and the order passed in I.A. No. 8689 of 2012 in O.S. No. 3604 of 2012 is challenged in this revision.

Mr. J. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the filing of the present suit is a clear case of abuse of process of

court and the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the entire cause of action arose at Thottavaram within the jurisdiction of

Padmanabhapuram Court and the court below, without any application of mind and without any reference to the prayers in the suit, passed a

cryptic order and therefore, the order of ad interim injunction is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that though a revision is not maintainable

against the order of ad interim injunction normally, having regard to the fact that this is a clear case of abuse of process of court and the City Civil

Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the revision is maintainable and the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. He also relied

upon the judgment in M. ISAAC, S/o. MUTHAIH v. THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA (2009 (2) CTC 631), J. M. Richard Vs. The Church

of South India Synod and Others, and Rt Rev Dr. V. Devasahyam, Bishop in Madras CSI and Another Vs. D. Sahayadoss and Others, in

support of his contention.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the revision is not maintainable and the only course available to

the revision petitioner is to approach the court below for modifying the order vacating the order of injunction and without resorting to the same, the

revision filed before this court is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 4 to 6 also supported the case of the first respondent and submitted that the court has no jurisdiction to

entertain the revision against an interlocutory order.

According to me, having regard to the allegations in the plaint and the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and

also having regard to the order passed by the court below in granting ad interim injunction, the revision filed under Article 227 is maintainable and

this is a fit case for interference by this court.

Before going into the maintainability of the revision, the facts as stated in the plaint have to be stated which will prove that this is a clear case of

abuse of process of court. It is stated in the plaint that CSI Church, Thottavaram is a Pastorate Church under Athoor District in Kanyakumari

Diocese. As per the provision of the Constitution of CSI Kanyakumari Diocese, election will be conducted once in three years. CSI Church,

Thottavaram is coming within the jurisdiction of CSI Kanyakumari Diocese and the sixth defendant/sixth respondent the Moderator, Church of

South India is having control over the 22 Dioceses including the CSI Kanyakumari Diocese. It is the further case that Mrs. Thankapushpam and

her son Mr. P. Jeyasekar the revision petitioner herein were declared defaulters and they are not entitled to hold any office. Nevertheless, the

Pastor of CSI Church, Thottavaram conducted Election on 19.2.2012 by including the names of defaulters viz., Thankapushpam and P. Jeyasekar

and challenging the same, the first respondent raised election dispute on 3.3.2012 and as no action was taken, he also sent representation to the

Moderator of CSI on 11.5.2012 to conduct enquiry and set aside the election held on 19.2.2012 and as no action has been taken, the suit was

filed for the reliefs as stated above.

The cause of action stated in the plaint is inclusion of defaulters in the voters list, conducting of election on 19.2.2012, objection sent to the fifth

and sixth respondent on 11.5.2012 and the suit was filed as sixth respondent is having office at Whites Road, Royapettah within the jurisdiction of

this court. Therefore, a reading of the plaint would make it clear that the suit was filed before the City Civil Court only on the basis of the address

of the sixth respondent though the main prayer in the suit is for declaration to declare the election for the post of Church Committee Members of

the CSI Church, Thottavaram held on 19.2.2012 is null and void.

Therefore, we will have to see whether the City Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the basis of the address of the sixth

respondent and what is the role of the sixth respondent in this matter. This issue has been elaborately discussed by this court in the judgment

reported in 2009 (2) CTC 631 (supra) and in similar circumstances, the learned Judge, after going through the CSI Rules held as follows:-

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The learned Judge, considered the CSI Rules and held that the mere existence of a Synod at Chennai would not confer jurisdiction upon the

original side of this court.

In this case also, the entire cause of action arose at Thottavaram, where the election was held and the main relief in the suit was to declare the

election as null and void and when the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the main relief of declaration regarding the election, the

jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the court by impleading the sixth defendant and praying the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants

5 and 6 from permitting the revision petitioner to participate in the Church Committee Meeting. In the judgment reported in The Aruvipuram

Dharma Paripalan Yogam, Vellapalli K. Nadesan, E.V. Vasavan and The Aruvipuram Sir Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam Vs. K.

Karunakaran, 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. Therefore, when the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to

entertain the suit, the grant of injunction is also without jurisdiction and on that ground the revision is to be allowed.

Further, we will have to see whether the order of ad interim injunction can be sustained. A revision against an order of ad interim injunction is

not maintainable when the court below has considered the merits of the case and passed a speaking order. Therefore, we will have to see whether

the court below has applied its mind while granting the order of ad interim injunction. The court referred to document No. 3 the interim injunction

granted against the defendants and later the same was closed due to the reason that the suit itself was ripe for trial and having regard to the

pendency of I.A. No. 76 of 2012 in C.M.A. SR No. 3156 of 2012 and the order of interim stay, the election conducted on 19.2.2012 became

subjudice and therefore, prima facie case has been made out and balance of convenience is also in favour of the first respondent.

In the judgment reported in Rt Rev Dr. V. Devasahyam, Bishop in Madras CSI and Another Vs. D. Sahayadoss and Others, , it has been held

that before granting ad interim injunction, the court has to state the reasons and the court must also satisfy about the maintainability of the suit and

also the facts and circumstances of the case. Though the court below appears to have stated some reason for the grant of ad interim injunction, this

court will not probe into the same, having regard to the fact that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it is also made

evident from the plaint allegations that the court below should not have granted ad interim injunction.

In the judgment reported in J. M. Richard Vs. The Church of South India Synod and Others, , this court also held that if the Trial Court has no

jurisdiction to decide the suit or the jurisdiction was improperly exercised in a manner not known to law, the court has got power to correct the

said order invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court can interfere to

prevent the abuse of process of court, to prevent miscarriage justice and to prevent grave injustice.

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 and

when allegations are made that on earlier occasions, the suit was filed before the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram and injunction was

obtained as against conducting of election to the Thottavaram CSI Church and having made such allegations, the first respondent has chosen to file

the suit before the City Civil Court, Chennai challenging the order when no part of the cause of action arose at Chennai within the jurisdiction of

City Civil Court.

Further, a representation to the sixth respondent to conduct enquiry will not clothe the City Civil Court the jurisdiction when no direction is

sought for against the sixth respondent to do a particular act and permanent injunction is sought only against respondents 5 and 6 restraining them

from permitting the first defendant from participating in the Church Committee Meeting and on that basis the election was held on 19.22012 and

election cannot be challenged before the court below as Padmanabhapuram Court has got jurisdiction to decide about the issue of election.

Considering all these aspects, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside and it is set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. Having

regard to the finding given by me that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue, the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,

Chennai is directed to return the plaint in O.S. No. 3604 of 2012 to the first respondent/plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court. No

costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.