There is no basis for framing substantial question of law.

Johnson, the first respondent herein filed the suit seeking declaration that the resolution dated 23.12.1996 removing him from the membership of C.S.I. Church, Chengode, is illegal and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants/appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein from taking any action against him on the basis of the said resolution.

2. After trial, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the first respondent herein. Even in the appeal filed by the defendants1 and 2, the said judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed. Hence, the second appeal.

3. According to the plaintiff, the first respondent herein, he is one of the members of the Church, viz., Chenkodi Pastorate Church within the Kanniyakumari C.S.I. Diocese. The plaintiff was appointed as Honourary Manager of the Diocesan Book Depot on 8.8.1988. The first defendant Bishop is the Ex-officio member of the Book Depot. Since the plaintiff supported the Secretary of the Church, the Bishop developed ill-feeling towards the plaintiff. Since one Ebenezer working as Sales Officer committed misappropriation, the defendants without any notice to the plaintiff, putting the blame on the plaintiff, passed an order forfeiting the membership of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the said order is invalid and for consequential injunction.

4. According to the defendants, the issue would relate to the internal affairs of the C.S.I. and as such, the plaintiff ought to have gone to the C.S.I. Diocese for settling the dispute and hence, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief sought for.

5. The relevant issues were framed in the trial Court. During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked through him. On the side of the defendants, no one was examined and however, Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

6. The trial Court on consideration of the materials on record, found the issues in favour of the plaintiff granting the relief sought for.

7. As indicated above, the appellate Court as well in the appeal filed by the defendants 1 and 2 would hold in favour of the first respondent,the plaintiff. Hence, the second appeal by the first defendant alone.

8. Mr.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would raise one and the only point with reference to the maintainability of the suit. According to him, all the defendants, namely, the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 are neither natural persons nor juridical persons and as such, the Courts below should have exercised the power under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. by either returning the plaint to the plaintiff or should have rejected the plaint for the reason that the Civil Court cannot grant a decree against a person who is neither a natural born person nor a juridical person unless Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. is invoked.

9. I have heard the counsel for the caveator/first respondent.

10. The question relating to maintainability of the suit on the ground that the defendants, appellant and respondents 2 and 3 are not natural persons or juridical persons has never been raised in the written statement nor any claim made to frame the issue before the trial Court. It is also admitted that this point has not been raised even before the lower Appellate Court. Thus, it is obvious that for the first time, this point has been raised before this Court in the second appeal.

11. In order to substantiate the question relating to the maintainability, Mr.Selvaraj cited an unreported judgment in O.S.A.Nos.285 and 293 of 1983 dated 26.9.1995 by pointing out some of the observations made by the Division Bench to the effect that the plaintiffs are not juridical or legal persons and so they cannot claim any relief in a Court of law and such right can be claimed only by a natural person or a juridical person. It is urged before this Court that the relief cannot be granted in a suit filed against a person who is not a natural person or a juridical perso