Rt. Rev Prasanna Kumar Samuel, vs Mr. Franklyn James,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3447 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

                           BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

              M.F.A.No.5148/2021(CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.     RT. REV PRASANNA KUMAR SAMUEL,
       SON OF LATE R.K.SAMUEL,
       AGED 65 YEARS,
       BISHOP, KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESE,
       No.20, 3RD CROSS, CSI COMPOUND,
       BANGALORE - 560 027.

2.     REV J PAUL DHANASEGARAN,
       SECRETARY - KARNATAKA CENTRAL
       DIOCESAN COUNCIL,
       No.20, 3RD CROSS, CSI COMPOUND,
       BANGALORE - 560 027.

3.     THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
       KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESE,
       No.20, 3RD CROSS, CSI COMPOUND,
       BANGALORE - 560 027.

4.     THE KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESE,
       No.20, 3RD CROSS, CSI COMPOUND,
       BANGALORE - 560 027.
       REP. BY REV J PAUL DHANASEGARAN.
                                       ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. B.M.ARUN, ADV.)

AND:

1.     MR. FRANKLYN JAMES,
                               2



     SON OF D.JAMES ABRAHAM,
     AGED 68 YEARS,
     No.215, BDS GARDEN,
     GEDDALAHALLI,
     KOTHANUR P.O.,
     BANGALORE - 560 077.

2.   CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA,
     No.5, WHITES ROAD,
     ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MISS SANJANA RAO, ADV.)


     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 08.10.2021 IN
O.S.No.26083/2021 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, MAYOHALL (CCH.21), THERE
ALLOWING I.A.Nos.1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE
CPC.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

1. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has restrained

the defendants/appellants herein from giving effect to the

resolution 'CX.383/2018-21: Synod Matter-Enquiry report'

dated 19.07.2021 pending disposal of the suit.

2. The Trial Court has further restrained the

defendants/appellants from preventing the plaintiff from

exercising his vote or from contesting any of the Elections of

the area councils, elections at the Triennial councils and/or

any other elections conducted by or with respect to the 4th

and 5th defendants, except in respect of the election which

prohibits him from contesting in the election under Chapter-

VII Rule 12(E) of the Constitution of 5th defendant, pending

disposal of the suit.

3. Thus, by the interim order, all that has been done by

the Trial Court is to permit the plaintiff to exercise his vote

and from contesting the elections. This interim order, in my

view, does not prejudice the appellants, in any manner. If the

plaintiff is permitted to participate in the electoral process, no

harm or prejudice would be caused to the appellants since the

right to participate in an election is an elementary right

available to a member of an organization governed by its

rules.

4. Sri B.M.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants vehemently contended that the Trial Court has not

made it clear as to whether the Returning Officer could reject

the application, if the plaintiff was otherwise ineligible.

5. Miss Sanjana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/plaintiff submits that it is always open for the

Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper, if, as a

matter of fact, there is any ineligibility surrounding the

candidature of the plaintiff. She also submits that the plaintiff

does not suffer from any disqualification and is entitled to

contest the election.

6. In view of the fact that both the parties are in

agreement that the nomination paper of the plaintiff can be

considered in accordance with the Constitution of the Church

of South India, 2016 and in accordance with law, the interim

order granted by the Trial Court does not, in any way,

prejudices either of them. I, therefore, find no reason to

entertain this appeal and the appeal is rejected subject,

however, to the observation made above.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PKS