The arguments advanced on behalf of the parties are heard. O.S. No. 3452/2013 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai came to be filed by J.C. Sampath Kumar and S. Christopher, the respondents 1 and 2 herein for various reliefs of declaration and injunction, including a declaration that the mandate dated 20.10.2012 issued by the third respondent herein (first defendant) from the CSI Synod Secretariat at Chennai to defendant No.9 in the said suit was in contravention of the procedures laid down by the CSI Constitution and hence the same was illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio.

2. The said suit came to be filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein in their individual capacities, but as persons representing the members of the CSI Central Karnataka Diocese, following the procedure contemplated under Order I Rule 8 CPC. Permission was granted to sue on behalf of numerous persons under Order I Rule 8 CPC in I.A. No. 8831/2013. Thereafter, summons were served on the defendants, but they have not filed their written statements. Along with the plaint, an interlocutory application was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for an interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit, restraining them from giving effect to the selection of defendant No.9 as the Bishop of the 7th defendant on 26.06.2013 and from consecreting or installing defendant No.9 or any one of the defendants 12, 13 and 14 as the Bishop of Karnataka Central Diocese.

3. In the said application, after the respondents entered appearance and after hearing both sides, an order of status quo dated 01.07.2013 came to be passed. The said application is I.A. No. 8847/2013. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, chose to file a memo dated 23.03.2015 withdrawing the said interlocutory application I.A. No. 8847/2013. Meanwhile, Mr. Johnshi Manuel, the revision petitioner herein filed an application in I.A. No. 2948/2015 for being impleaded as a party in the suit. While the said application was pending, I.A. No. 8847/2013 was sought to be withdrawn and the learned trial Judge, acting on the Memo filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, passed the impugned order dated 23.03.2015 dismissing I.A. No. 8847/2013 as withdrawn. Subsequent to the said order, the revision petitioner, namely Johnshi Manuel got impleaded as a party in the suit and was ranked as third plaintiff by an order dated 30.04.2015.

4. Along with the memo seeking permission to withdraw I.A. No. 8847/2013, the respondents 1 and 2 also filed a Memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit. Both the Memos were dated 23.03.2015. No order came to be passed in the Memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit. The said Memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit was not accepted and the respondents 1 and 2 herein were directed to file a petition seeking permission to withdraw the suit. However, the learned trial Judge chose to accept the Memo seeking permission to withdraw I.A. No. 8847/2013 filed for interim injunction pending disposal of the suit and passed an order dismissing the said application I.A. No. 8847/2013 as withdrawn, having the effect of vacating the order of status quo granted in the said interlocutory application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has approached this court with the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The sole ground on which the impugned order of the trial court dated 23.03.2015 made in I.A. No. 8847/2013 dismissing the said IA as withdrawn is that the suit being a representative suit, the order permitting withdrawal ought not to have been granted without following the procedure contemplated under Order I Rule 8(4) CPC. On the other hand, the civil revision petition is resisted by the respondents 1 to 8 based on their contention that Order I Rule 8(4) CPC shall stand attracted only for the withdrawal of the suit and not for the incidental proceedings.

6. In support of their contention, the respondents herein drawn the