ORDER :- This is yet another litigation arising out of the unfortunate dispute in the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church between the Catholics and his supporters on the one hand, and the champions of the Patriarch on the other, the ghost of which one had thought (as it appears, wishfully thought) had been laid by the Supreme Court by the decision reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. T.P. Avira, 1958 Ker LT 721: (AIR 1959 SC 31). The point arising here is whether there was a proper plaint on which the Court could take cognizance of the suit. This question was tried as a preliminary issue, and, the Court below having found in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants have come up in revision. 2. The long cause title in the plaint describes the plaintiff thus (shedding honorifics and other unnecessary words): "For and on behalf of Jacob III, Patriarch of Antioch, his delegate in India, Mar Julius Elias Metropolitan". The signature both at the foot of the plaint and of the verification against the word, "Plaintiff", is by the Metropolitan with this qualification added, namely, that the Metropolitan is signing for and on behalf of the Throne of Antioch, being the delegate thereof - the Throne of Antioch, I am told, is not a juristic person and is only a figurative way of describing the Patriarch. There can be no doubt therefore that the Patriarch is the plaintiff, and that the Metropolitan has signed and verified the plaint only on behalf of the Patriarch as his delegate. I do not read the plaint as a whole, or paragraphs 1, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 24 and prayer A thereof to which special attention has been drawn, as claiming any title in the Metropolitan himself in his capacity as the delegate of Patriarch, or as seeking any relief for the Metropolitan himself. The claims and the reliefs are all made and sought by the Metropolitan for and on behalf of the Patriarch. But, even if the body of the plaint can be read as setting up title in the Metropolitan himself, it is by no means unusual for a plaint to refer to the title of a third party, and, that, by itself, can be no indication that the Metropolitan is the plaintiff or that he has brought the plaint for himself as also for the Patriarch.

For discovering who is the plaintiff, one has really to go to the description of the plaintiff as given in the plaint and to the subscription to the plaint, and I am unable to agree with the finding of the Court below that, "on a reading of the plaint as a whole it is quite clear that the plaintiff is really Elias Mar Julius, Metropolitan and that the suit is instituted to protect the rights which he claims as the delegate of the Patriarch of Antioch." On the contrary it seems to me abundantly clear that the suit is instituted to protect the title and the rights of the Patriarch of Antioch, that the Patriarch is the plaintiff, and that the only claim made by the Metropolitan is that he is bringing the suit for and on behalf of the Patriarch.

3. This seems to be the aspect of the case that was canvassed in the Court below. But there is still the other aspect which has been pressed before me, namely, whether the plaint cannot be regarded as one properly signed by the plaintiff, namely, the Patriarch as required by Order VI Rule 14 read with Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. On this the finding of the Court below is definitely against the plaintiff and it is in the following terms:

"If the plaintiff in this case is really the Patriarch of Antioch and Elias Mar Julius Metropolitan has signed the suit, verified it and filed it on behalf of the Patriarch of Antioch there should be a valid power of attorney and there should be specific authorisation of Elias Mar Julius Metropolitan by the Patriarch of Antioch to verify the plaint. Such a power of attorney is required under Order 3 R.2 to file a suit under Order 3 Rule 1".

4. With this finding I am disposed to agree. It is said on behalf of the plaintiff that the letters dated 22-5-1959 and 8-3-196

Click Here to Read the rest of this document