The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdictional provisions in the Constitution of the Church of South India, specifically Rule 4 Chapter XI and Rule 14 Chapter VIII, and the application of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to correct errors of jurisdiction and prevent abuse of process of law.

1. C.R.P.(PD).No.3961 of 2011 has been filed by the 7th defendant in O.S.No.7443 of 2011 before the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the order of interim injunction granted by the said Court in I.A.No.15941 of 2011. Respondents 7 to 9 in this civil revision petition have filed the said suit and obtained an order of interim injunction. Defendants 1 to 6 in the said suit are respondents 1 to 6.

2. C.R.P (PD) No.4026 of 2011 was filed by defendants 1, 6, 7 and 11 in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 before the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to reject the plaint in the said suit. The plaintiff in the said suit is the first respondent and the other defendants are respondents 2 to 9.

3. C.R.P. (PD) No.4027 of 2011 has been filed by the very same petitioners in C.R.P (PD) No.4026 of 2011 challenging the order of interim injunction granted by the said Court made in I.A.No.15075 of 2011 at the instance of the first respondent / plaintiff.

4. C.R.P (PD) No.4035 of 2011 has been filed by defendants 5 and 10 in the suit in O.S.No.7479 of 2011 referred to above challenging the very same order of interim injunction granted in the said suit. The plaintiff in the said suit is the first respondent and the other defendants are arrayed as other respondents.

5. O.S.No.7443 of 2011 was filed to declare that the petitioner in CR.P (PD) No.3961 of 2011, who is the 7th defendant in the said suit, is not qualified and incompetent and ineligible to contest for any post at the pastorate level, area council, diocesan council in the Karnataka Central Diocese and contesting as a representative to the Synod of the Church of South India and management Committee of the fourth respondent therein and for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 therein or their men agent or anybody claiming through them in any manner allowing the petitioner herein to participate in any of the post pertaining to the office bearers of the 5th defendant therein.

6. The allegation in the said suit was that the petitioner / 7th defendant in the said suit is the member of the Rice Memorial Church of the Karnataka Central Diocese. He was already a member of the management committee of the CSITA. During the period when he was holding the said post, he misused his office for personal gain. He has also begun to show favouritism to his supporters and harass those who did not fall in line with his way of thinking. He indulged himself in financial irregularities and mismanagement of properties. In paragraph 18 of the plaint, it is stated as follows:-

“18. The plaintiffs submits that the 7th defendant though being in the form of a trustee who had to take care of the properties and fund in the Karnataka Central Diocese, Synod and the CSITA at large has failed in his duty as a guardian of the duties given into his hands but has only misused for his own personal gains etc. Further if he is allowed to contest the election for the post of diocesan treasurer for a biennium 20112013 and if the 7th defendant wins the election then serious prejudice will be caused to the diocese and the church at large as he will then try to get himself nominated to the Synod Church of South India (the 2nd defendant) and also become the member of the 4th defendant and start continuing the same acts earlier done by him putting the entire Church of South India into serious prejudice”.

7. To invoke the jurisdiction of the Court at Chennai, in paragraph 19, it has been pleaded as follows:-

“19. The present suit is filed before this Hon’ble Court in view of the provision contained in the Constitution of the Church of South India at Rule 4 Chapter XI. The Office of the CSI Synod is situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and therefore the present suit is being filed before this Hon’ble Court. Further the prayer is also against the defendants who are here in Chennai.”

8. In paragraph 20 of the plaint, cause of action has been set out, whic