The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff is precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter or part of the claim if the earlier suit was withdrawn without seeking leave under Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

R.S. Ramanathan, J.

1. The defendant is the applicant in the above Application. The applicant filed the above Application to reject the plaint in C.S.No.710 of 2013 on the ground that the suit is barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code and also not maintainable on the ground that leave under Order I, Rule 8 of the CPC was not obtained.

2. To appreciate the merits of the Application, the pleadings in the plaint have to be looked into :-

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the following relief :-

(i) for a declaration that the order of suspension dated 03.04.2013 is ultra vires the Constitution of Church of South India, which has been clandestinely restored by the defendant by making the plaintiff withdraw the suit filed by the plaintiff earlier.

(ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men or agent claiming under him from proceeding to constitute the Court of Synod without following the procedures contemplated in the Constitution of Church of South India against the plaintiff.

(iii) for Cost of the suit.

3. The allegations made in the plaint in brief for the purpose of this Application are that the plaintiff was elected, selected, appointed, consecrated, and installed as the First Bishop of Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese, during May 2006, and as such, he is the religious administrative Head of the Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese and, has been discharging his duty as Bishop. Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese is a member of CSI Synod, which is the highest representative body of Church of South India. The defendant started interfering in the internal affairs of the Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese and therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.64 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi, to declare that the letter of the defendant/applicant dated 16.01.2013 as null and avoid and also obtained an order of injunction against the defendant from interfering with the functions of the plaintiff as Bishop by order dated 25.02.2013. Another suit in O.S.No.454 of 2013 was filed by Rev.Devasahayam, who was also aggrieved by the letter of the defendant/applicant, dated 16.1.2013 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, and he also obtained an order of injunction in that suit and that order was also made absolute. While so, the plaintiff received an intimation dated 29.1.2013 for the meeting of Executive Committee of the CSI Synod to be held on 25.2.2013 along with enclosures as Agenda and Minutes of the Synod Advisory Committee held on 22.08.2012. The plaintiff attended the meeting on 25.02.2013 and in that meeting, he asked for the particulars about the draft Minutes of earlier Executive Committee meeting to be confirmed at that meeting, which was not circulated as per the procedure and the Secretary of CSI Synod refused to divulge any information. According to the plaintiff, in the meeting held on 25.02.2013, the procedures as contemplated under the constitution of Church of South India were not followed and the Minutes of the said meeting have not also been circulated. However, the plaintiff received a letter of Communication dated 03.04.2013 by email sent by the defendant stating that the decision of the Executive committee to suspend the plaintiff from the post of Bishop of Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese for his disorderly behaviour at the meeting held on 25.02.2013. According to the plaintiff, the letter dated 03.04.2013 suspending from the office of Bishop is unconstitutional as the Executive Committee of the Synod does not have the power to suspend the Bishop. The plaintiff quoted Chapter V, Rule 12(a), Chapter IX, Rule 14, Chapter IX Rule 29 to buttress his contention that the Executive Committee of Synod has no power power to suspend. He therefore filed O.S.No.2065 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for a declaration that the letter of the Synod dated 03.04.2013 as null and void. The defendant entered appea