1. The Clergy is in Court. The Bishops are looking up to the Bar and the Bench. The sight is symbolic of the turbulent times that the society is passing through. What is the cause before the Court? An appeal against an order of interim injunction.

2. An application under 0.39 R.1 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-respondents has been allowed by the First Addl. District Judge, Ernakulam. The sole defendant has been "restrained by a temporary injunction order from acting as the Catholicos elect or Bishop and from entering into any of the Parish churches of Malankara Church, administered under 1934 constitution, coming within the Angamaly, Kandanadu and Cochin Dioceses of Malankara Church " Hence, this appeal by the defendant. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal may be briefly noticed.

3. The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit in their personal capacity as well as representatives of all the members of the Catholicos group of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The first respondent alleges that he is the Metropolitan of the Chengannur Diocese. The 2nd respondent claims that he is the Metropolitan of the Cochin Diocese. The 3rd respondent is priest of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. It is alleged that the Malankara Church consists of 1064 Parish Churches. These are to be administered under the 1934 Constitution by the Malankara Association. This constitution lays down the procedure for the appointment of Bishops and Metropolitans. The Association has to elect the Bishop. This election has to be approved by the Holy Episcopal Synod. Further steps for consecration etc. are duly laid down. According to the plaintiff-respondents, no one can become a Bishop of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church unless the procedure prescribed in the 1934 constitution is followed.

4. The plaintiff-respondents have alleged in the pleadings that the sole defendant (now the appellant) "was a priest called Fr. Thomas". He had not been elected, approved or consecrated in accordance with the Constitution. He had not "submitted a Salmoosa to the Catholicos nor does he have a Sthathicon from the Catholicos. In short, he is not a Bishop or Metropolitan as far as the Parish churches are concerned. However, he is illegally using the appellation of Mar Dionysius permitted only for lawful Bishops; wearing the ceremonial robes of a Bishop; ordaining laymen as priests; entering the Parish Churches in Kandanadu, Kochi and Angamali Dioceses as Bishop and performing religious rites. He is also styling himself as the president of a parallel Episcopal Synod, when no such Synod exists". It was further alleged that vide judgment dated June 1, 1990, passed in A.S. 331 of 1980, the High Court of Kerala had declared that "the defendant is not a legally consecrated Metropolitan of the Malankara Church". He was prohibited from ordaining laymen as priests or deacons, or performing any other sacraments service etc. for the Malankara Church or its institutions. The appeal against this judgment was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the decree was affirmed. Despite that the defendant was claiming the benefit of subsequent direction given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews (AIR 1996 SC 3121). He was "pretending to be the Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocese". On June 20,1995, H.G.Philipose Mar Theophilaos of the Catholicos group was the Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocese. He had become the Metropolitan in the year 1966. He had passed away in 1997. He had no rival. Thus, he is not entitled to the benefit of the order of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. The defendant is not the lawful Metropolitan of any of the Dioceses including Kandanadu, Cochin and Angamali. He is defying the Constitution and the supreme authority of the Catholicos.

5. On these and other allegations, the plainti