Madras High Court
Mr.Jhon Kennady vs The Church Of South India on 22 September, 2021
C.S.No.8 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.PARTHIBAN
C.S.No.8 of 2020
and
Application No.2293 of 2021
Mr.Jhon Kennady ...Plaintiff
Vs.
1.The Church of South India,
Rep by its General Secretary,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
2.The Most Rev.Moderator,
Church of South India,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
3.The Rt.Rev.Deputy Moderator,
Church of South India,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
4.The General Secretary,
Church of South India,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
5.The Treasurer,
Church of South India,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
...Defendants
Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C and Order IV Rule 1
of O.S.Rules praying to
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/4
C.S.No.8 of 2020
i) Declare that the Synod meeting proposed to be conducted
from 11th January to 14th January 2020 in Trichy or on subsequent
days in any other place by the defendants without notice to the
elected members or Tirunelveli Diocese to the Synod is illegal, null
and void.,
ii)Grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from conducting the CSI Synod meetings in Trichy from 11th of
January 2020 to 14th January 2020 or on any subsequent dates in
any other place without prior notice to the plaintiff.
iii)Grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from preventing the plaintiff from participating in the CSI Synod
meetings to be conducted by the defendants in Trichy from 11th of
January 2020 to 14th of January 2020 or on any subsequent dates
in any other place.
iv)direct the defendants to pay the cost of the proceeding.
For Plaintiff : Mr.M.A.Gouthaman
For Defendants : Mr.Adrian D.Rozario
JUDGMENT
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that he is not pressing
prayers (ii) & (iii) as contained in the plaint. However, he has
attempted to impress upon this Court that the suit to be kept
pending in respect of prayer (i) in the plaint. The learned counsel for
the defendants brought to the knowledge of this Court that the
Synod meeting was conducted as early as in the month of January,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.8 of 2020
2020 in the absence of any interim order in the present
proceedings. Elections to the various officers to the Synod had
been completed and persons assumed office on 10 January, 2020
itself and been functioning as such till date. The above statement of
fact is not disputed. When prayers (ii) and (iii) are given up by the
plaintiff himself, the question of keeping the suit pending on the file
of this Court, will not serve any useful purpose, other than
mischievously and maliciously keeping the 'lis' alive at the cost of
precious time of this Court.
2.In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any
worthy cause of action surviving for adjudication of this Court. This
Court is therefore of the view that prayer (i) has worked itself out
due to passage of time and is liable to be dismissed.
3.Accordingly, the suit stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected application stands closed.
22.09.2021
tri/mrm
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
Speaking Order
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.8 of 2020
V.PARTHIBAN.,J.
tri/mrm
C.S.No.8 of 2020
&
A.No.2293 of 2021
22.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
