Madras High Court
Rt.Rev.Dr.S.E.C.Devasahayam vs Church Of South India on 5 September, 2023
O.S.A.No.101 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
O.S.A. No. 101 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.12200 of 2023
Rt.Rev.Dr.S.E.C.Devasahayam,
Bishop,
CSI Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese
Caldwell School Campus,
100, Beach Road,
Thoothukudi 628 001. ... Appellant
v.
1.Church of South India,
Represented by its Moderator.
2.Most Rev.A.Dharmaraj Rasalam,
Moderator,
The Church of South India.
3.Rt.Rev.Dr.K.Reuben Mark,
Deputy Moderator,
Bishop in Karimnagar.
4.Rt.Rev.Dr.D.Chandrasekaran,
Bishop in Trichy – Tanjore,
Member, Court of Synod.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.101 of 2023
5.Rt.Rev.V.S.Francis,
Member, Court of Synod,
Bishop in East Kerala.
6.Rt.Rev.Dr.Oommen George,
Member, Court of Synod,
Bishop in Kollam - Kottarakara
7.Rt.Rev.Dr.Royce Manoj,
Member, Court of Synod,
Bishop in Malabar.
8.Rev.A.David Jebaraj,
Pastor,
Member, Court of Synod.
9.Rev.Samuel Calvin,
Pastor,
Member, Court of Synod.
10.Mrs.G.Sumalatha,
Lay Person,
Member, Court of Synod.
11.Mr.Vinod Dasan,
Lay Person,
Member, Court of Synod.
12.Mr.C.Fernandas Rathinas Raja,
General Secretary.
13.Rt.Rev.Dr.M.Joseph,
Bishop in Madurai – Ramnad. ... Respondents
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.101 of 2023
Prayer: Original Side Appeal is filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules read with Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent, 1865, praying to set aside
the order dated 05.06.2023 in Application No.1547 of 2023 in C.S.No.69 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel for
M/s Kingsly Solomon
For Respondents : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel for
M/s Adrian D. Razario
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.)
This original side appeal is filed by the appellant / plaintiff challenging the
order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the learned Judge in Application No. 1547 of
2023 in C.S. No. 69 of 2022 insofar as it fails to set aside the judgment and decree
dismissing the suit in C.S. No. 69 of 2022 as withdrawn and consequently order
restoration of the same to file.
2. The suit in C.S. No. 69 of 2022 was filed interalia amongst other prayers to
declare the suspension order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the defendants against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.101 of 2023
plaintiff as bad in law and void ab initio. Thereafter, the plaint was amended which
is not relevant for the purpose of disposing of the present appeal and is thus not dealt
with. Pending the suit, two memos dated 09.08.2022 and 17.08.2022 were filed
withdrawing the said suit. While the 1st memo reserves liberty to re-open the suit in
the event of the failure of the respondents to unanimously revoke the suspension, the
2nd memo however unconditionally withdraws the suit. On the basis of the same, the
learned Judge has proceeded to dismiss the suit. Thereafter, an application in
Application No.1547 of 2023 was filed by the appellant / plaintiff seeking to
set aside the judgement and decree dated 22.08.2022, dismissing the suit as
withdrawn and to restore the same. The said application came to be rejected vide
impugned order dated 05.06.2023. Therefore, this appeal by the appellant / plaintiff.
3. Though contentions were raised on the side of the appellant as to the
circumstances which prompted the appellant to withdraw the suit, which were
refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents, we do not propose to examine the
merit or otherwise of the submissions/contentions raised in the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.101 of 2023
4. However, after submissions being made for a brief, the learned senior
counsel for the appellant has drwan the attention of this court to the communication
dated 07.09.2022 sent by the appellant to the Sycod Court, in which, the appellant
stated his reply to the show cause notice issued to him and also tendered apology to
the Moderator and Bishop council, if the Synod finds any offending words in his
affidavit. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the appellant is ready and
willing to approach the Synod court for revocation of his suspension, but due to non-
functioning of the same, he preferred the instant application seeking to restore the
suit on file, which was dismissed by the learned Judge by the order impugned herein.
5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted
that the Synod Court is very much functioning and any appeal is filed by the
appellant, the same would be considered by it, on merits.
6. As a riposte, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that as
against the suspension order, the appellant would approach the Synod court and
hence, a time limit may be fixed for disposal of the same, since only a few months is
left for the appellant’s tenure as Bishop to expire.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.101 of 2023
7. In view of the above submissions made by the learned senior counsel
appearing for both sides, we grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Synod
Court by filing appeal / petition as against the order of suspension dated 20.04.2022
passed against him, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment. On such filing, the Synod Court shall consider the same and pass
appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two
months thereafter.
8. This Original Side Appeal stands disposed of, in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D.,J.] [M.S.Q.,J.]
05.09.2023
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non Speaking order
shk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.101 of 2023
R.MAHADEVAN,J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
shk
O.S.A. No. 101 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.12200 of 2023
05.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
