The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of recording reasons for granting ex parte injunctions under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized the importance of complying with this requirement and set aside the injunction orders due to the lower court's failure to record reasons.

1. Aggrieved by the orders, dated 30.6.2010 passed in I.A. No.11486, 11487 and 11488 of 2010 in O.S. No.5975 of 2010 by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Petitioners have filed the above C.R.Ps.

2. When the above C.R,Ps. Came up for admission, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners sought for permission to withdraw the C.R.P. No.2204 of 2010 and to that effect an endorsement has also been made.

3. In view of the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and in the light of the endorsement made by him, the C.R.P. No.2204 of 2010 is dismissed as withdrawn.

4. As far as the C.R.P. Nos.2203 and 2205 of 2010 are concerned, the Petitioners in the above C.R.Ps. are the Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in O.S.Nos.5975 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The Respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the said Suit for the following reliefs.

a. For a declaration, declaring the 2nd Defendant is ineligible and incompetent to hold the post of President of IELC for violating the constitution and bye-laws of the IELC;

b. For a permanent injunction restraining the Second Defendant from functioning the discharging his duties a President of IELC in any manner;

c. For a declaration declaring that the Defendants 3 to 5 have rendered themselves ineligible to hold the post of Church-Council members of IELC.

d. For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 3 to 5 from functioning as Church Council members of IELC in any manner.

e. For a declaration declaring that the appointment of the 6th Defendant is null and void as his appointment is contrary to the Constitution and Bye-laws of the IELC.

f. For a permanent injunction restraining the 6th Defendant from functioning as Business Administrator of the Bethasda Hospital, Ambur, and

g. Direct the 2nd Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the 1st Defendant.

5. Pending the Suit, the Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A. Nos.11486 and 11488 of 2010 praying for Interim Injunction restraining the 6th Defendant from functioning as Business Administrator of the Bethasda Hospital, Ambur pending disposal of the above said Suit and for Interim Injunction restraining the Second Respondent from functioning and discharging his duties as a President of IELC in any manner pending disposal of the Suit respectively.

6. The Court below passed the following order in I.A.No.11486 of 2010: TAMIL

7. In I.A.Ni.11488 of 2010, the following order came to be passed: TAMIL

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid ex parte order of injunction granted by the Court below, the Respondents 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have filed the above C.R.Ps. The Third Respondent in the above Revision Petitions is the 4th Defendant in the Suit.

9. Heard both.

10. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents made extensive submissions touching upon the merits of the case and also regarding the legality of the order passed by the Court below, this Court is not going into the merits of the rival contentions. The Civil Revision Petitions could be disposed of on a short ground.

11. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Court below failed to see that the Plaintiff shave not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts particularly the pendency of the Suits on the file of the Original Side of the High Court of Madras. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Court below failed to see that the issue raised in the present Suit in O.S.No.5975 of 2010 was the issue in C.S.No.811 of 2007 and the Suit in O.S.No.5975 of 2010 was the issue in C.S.No.811 of 2007 and the Suit was filed by D. Manuel Doss and others under Section 92, C.P.C. In the said Suit C.S.No.811 of 2007, the Plaintiffs were not successful in getting interim orders. In the Application NO.6695 of 2008 filed for seeking leave under Sections 92, C.P.C. only notice has been ordered.

12. The learned Senior Counsel fu