The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 12(a) of Chapter V of the Constitution of the Church of South India regarding the duration of a bishop's appointment.

(M. Chockalingam, J.)

These appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A.No.492 of 2009, an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs holding the office and discharging the functions of the Bishop in Madras, Madras Diocese, and in Application No.2171/2009, an application for stay of the operation of the letter dated 30.4.2009 of the Moderator to the plaintiff.

2. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side.

3. These appeals have arisen under the following circumstances:

(a) One Laity Association of Church of South India (CSI) -Madras Diocese, represented by its General Secretary and Vice President, filed a suit in C.S.No.295 of 2009 for declaration that the fifth defendant therein Rt.Rev.Dr.V.Devasagayam, cannot hold the post of Bishop of CSI, Madras Diocese, beyond 5. 2009 and also for consequential reliefs along with the mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 2 and 3 therein to issue a direction to the fourth defendant in respect of the nomination of Bishopric candidates to the post of Bishop. In that suit, the plaintiff filed an application in O.A.No.329 of 2009 seeking interim injunction to restrain the fifth defendant referred to above, from holding the post of Bishop beyond 5. 2009 and also an application in A.No.1561/2009 seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to commence election process. In that suit, pursuant to the orders of Court, summons were served upon the defendants. The Court recorded the statements of the defendants 1 and 2 therein that Synod would decide the issue relating to the continuance of the fifth defendant as Bishop since the Executive Committee of the Synod was seized of the issue.

(b) The second defendant in the said suit namely the Moderator of CSI, issued a communication on 30.4.2009 stating that the term of office of the fifth defendant Bishop would come to an end on 5. 2009, and that he might continue as a caretaker Bishop of CSI Diocese from 5. 2009 till such time the Executive Committee of Synod takes a decision as per the interim order passed by the Court dated 24. 2009.

(c) While the matter stood thus, the fifth defendant in the above suit namely Rt.Rev.Dr.V.Devasahayam filed the instant suit in C.S.No.423 of 2009 seeking for a declaration that he was entitled to continue to hold the office of Bishop in Madras CSI till he completes the age of 65, and the letter dated 30.4.2009 issued by the Moderator was contrary to the Constitution of CSI and also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his functioning as Bishop of Madras CSI. In the said suit, the plaintiff has filed the instant applications for the above said interim reliefs.

(d) The learned Single Judge on enquiry, allowed both the applications. Hence these appeals at the instance of the defendants 1 and 2.

4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash would submit that the appellants are unincorporated bodies, and hence the suit framed is not maintainable under Order I, Rule 8 of C.P.C.; that the restriction of the tenure of the first respondent was not merely in terms of such resolution, but on account of the first respondent expressing his willingness to hold the office of bishop for not more than 10 years; that the said restriction was made on account of health condition of the first respondent; that he was a party to his appointment; that the plaintiff has suppressed the above material facts; that the letter dated 24. 1999 alleged to have been written by the Moderator to the first respondent herein was ex facie fabricated for the purpose of misleading the Court; that it is pertinent to point out that such an appointment was only after the confirmation by the members of the Executive Committee of Synod; that the same was final and binding on the first respondent; that also the Moderator neither had the power