Madras High Court
D.Neegar Prince Giftson vs D.Mohanraj Arumainayagam on 13 November, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
O.S.A.No.219 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
O.S.A.No.219 of 2024
AND
C.M.P.No.24658 of 2024
1.D.Neegar Prince Giftson
Lay-Secretary
The CSI Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese
100, Beach Road
Caldwell School Campus
Thoothukudi 628 001
2.Rev.V.M.S.Tamil Selvan
Vice Chairman
The CSI Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese
100, Beach Road
Caldwell School Campus
Thoothukudi 628 001 .. Appellants
Vs.
1.D.Mohanraj Arumainayagam
2.The Church of South India
Rep. by its Officer Bearers
CSI Synod Secretariat, CSI Centre
No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah
Chennai 600 014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
O.S.A.No.219 of 2024
3.The Moderator
Church of South India
CSI Synod Secretariat, CSI Centre
No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah
Chennai 600 014
4.K.Reuben Mark
Deputy Moderator
Church of South India
CSI Synod Secretariat, CSI Centre
No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah
Chennai 600 014
5.C.Fernandes Rathina Raja
General Secretary
Church of South India
CSI Synod Secretariat, CSI Centre
No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah
Chennai 600 014
6.B.Vimal Kumar
Treasurer
Church of South India
CSI Synod Secretariat, CSI Centre
No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah
Chennai 600 014 .. Respondents
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules
read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.10.2024
passed in A.No.832 of 2024 in C.S.No.35 of 2024.
For Appellants : Mr.P.S.Raman
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.M.Packianathan Easter
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/9
O.S.A.No.219 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This original side appeal is directed against the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 22.10.2024 passed in A.No.832 of 2024 in C.S.No.35 of
2024.
2. The 1st respondent in this appeal as plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.35
of 2024 for the following reliefs :
(a) Declare as invalid and consequently set aside the order of
suspension dated 21.12.2023 issued by defendants 3 against
plaintiff;
(b) Permanent injunction restraining defendants 3-5 from
participating in the governance of the 1st defendant and its
Dioceses, Church Councils and Pastorates;
(c) Appoint an Administrator to investigate, take over, and
manage, the affairs, and particularly the finances, of the
TND;
(d) Costs and legal fees incurred by plaintiff.”
3. It is seen that the 1st defendant is the Church of South India (CSI)
represented by its office bearers; the 2nd defendant is the Moderator of the CSI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Synod Secretariat; the 3rd defendant is the Deputy Moderator of the CSI Synod
Secretariat; the 4th defendant is the General Secretary of the CSI Synod
Secretariat; and the 5th defendant is the Treasurer of the CSI Synod Secretariat.
4. All the prayers in the civil suit relates to the affairs of Thoothukudi
Nazareth Diocese, Tuticorin, which is an independent body, governed by
separate bye-laws. The 1st respondent was elected as Treasurer of Thoothukudi
Nazareth Diocese which is one among the 24 Dioceses of CSI, CSI Synod
Secretariat. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the Secretary and
Administrator of CSI, CSI Synod Secretariat, which is an authority to oversee
the affairs of all the Dioceses, including Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese. The
plaintiff filed a suit challenging the order of suspension issued by the
3rd defendant in the suit. The 3rd defendant is the bishop in-charge of
Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese.
5. It is not in dispute that the order of suspension was by the Moderator
in-charge of CSI, who was also in-charge as Bishop, Thoothukudi Nazareth
Diocese. So the order of suspension is not by the Synod. CSI consists of 24
Dioceses throughout South India and Sri Lanka. Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese
is one of the Dioceses. The CSI Synod Secretariat is the body to oversee the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
affairs of all the Dioceses. Even though the order that was challenged in the
suit is an order passed by a person, who was acting as Bishop of Thoothukudi
Nazareth Diocese, none of the office bearers of Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese
are made as parties. As a matter of fact, the order of suspension challenged in
the suit is pursuant to the initiatives by the Executive Committee of the
Diocese.
6. During the pendency of the suit, an application in A.No.832 of 2024
was filed to suspend the operation of the order of suspension dated 21.12.2023
issued by the 3rd respondent as against the applicant/plaintiff. The said
application was taken up along with other applications and ultimately, the
learned Single Judge has passed an order in A.No.832 of 2024, after referring
to the details of other applications.
7. This appeal is filed by the Lay-Secretary and Vice Chairman, who are
the office bearers of the Diocese, after getting leave from this Court. The
grievance of the appellants is that the order is passed by the learned Single
Judge, without knowing that necessary and proper parties are not made as
parties. It is further stated that the tenure of Secretary was only up to
20.10.2024 and therefore, the order that was passed by the learned Single Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has conferred right to the 1st respondent to continue, beyond the tenure up to
which he was to act as Secretary.
8. This Court is of the prima facie view that the order impugned is a
cryptic order, ignoring that the order of suspension was passed only on the
basis of the decision of the Executive Committee. It is relevant to mention that
the order dated 21.12.2023, referred to serious allegations of conniving in the
demolition of new and the old Tooveypuram Pastorate parsonage buildings and
reconstruction of such buildings by fabricating records and by transferring
funds from the Diocese, among other misconducts. However, the learned
Single Judge relying upon the resolution produced before him, has accepted the
contention that the order of suspension is invalid, by assuming that there was
valid permission for demolition and reconstruction of buildings. From the
nature of the order passed by the 3rd defendant, it is seen that the order of
suspension is based on serious allegations. It is seen that the resolution
produced before the Court does not authorise demolition of new buildings.
Further allegation of misappropriation is not even noticed by the learned Single
Judge. When the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of
Tuticorin, the suit was filed before this Court without impleading the
appellants. It is stated that in order to avoid an objection questioning territorial
jurisdiction, the appellants are not made as parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff
submitted that the suit is filed in a representative capacity by the 1st respondent
following Order I Rule 8A of CPC. However, the fact that the suit is filed in a
representative capacity is not an answer for not impleading the appellants who
are necessary and proper parties.
10. Be that as it may, the order suspending the order of suspension is not
based on other material documents, except the resolution. The learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the course of arguments relied upon
several documents, including the show cause notice and other minutes of the
Executive Committee. Since the order is not based on relevant documents but
on the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
1st respondent/plaintiff before this Court, this Court is unable to sustain the
order on merits.
11. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
However, the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for passing
appropriate orders, after hearing the appellants as well as the 1st respondent.
Since the 1st respondent has no objection for impleading the appellants as
parties, the application will be heard and disposed of, after impleading the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants as parties. The learned Single Judge is directed to dispose of
A.No.832 of 2024, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
With the above direction, this Original Side Appeal stands allowed.
No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [P.D.B.,J.]
13.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
gya
13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
