1. The sum and substance of the Revision Petitioner’s case runs as follows:

The Revision petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.120 of 2013 against the Respondents herein before the Sub-Court, Tuticorin for the relief of declaration to declare the Plaintiffs are the members of the Tuticorin-Nazareth diocese and are entitled to contest and vote in the Tuticorin-Nazareth Diocese and sought for consequential permanent injunction from preventing the Plaintiffs from contesting the forth coming election.

2. The Petitioners also moved an interlocutory application in I.A.No.359 of 2015 seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from removing their names in the voters list and also from preventing the petitioners from contesting the election to the Diocese Council of CSI, Tuticorin-Nazareth.

3. The respondents resisted the application and filed detailed counter contending that the suit is hit by want of compliance with Order I, Rule 8 of CPC and the suit is also liable to be dismissed under Order II, Rule 2 of CPC as the present suit is being filed despite the pendency of previous suits relating to the Diocese Election. According to the respondents, the suit ought to have been filed invoking Order 1, Rule 8 of CPC, with the leave of the court and express authorization of such interested persons. Yet another contention of the respondents is that the Revision petitioners are removed from voter’s roll in the light of their default over subscription. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the Interim Injunction application.

4. The Trial Court on appreciation of the available records vide an order dated 28.05.2013 granted Interim Injunction as prayed for by the Revision petitioners after having an elaborate discussion over the issue. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents herein filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.18 of 2013 before the learned 1stAdditional District Court, Thoothukudi and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 17.11.2014. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision.

5. I heard Mr. C.Dhanaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. N.G.A. Natraj, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, M/s.Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the entire materials available on records.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioners submitted that they are the members of Tuticorin-Nazareth Diocese and they are entitled to participate and vote in the Elections of the Diocese. However the respondents lawlessly with a view to prevent the revision petitioners from contesting the forthcoming election have not included the names of the revision petitioners in the voter list, despite being a Member of the diocese.

7. In so far as the contention of the respondents that the suit is hit by want of compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, the Learned counsel for the revision petitioners to agitate the same, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the matter of Singhai Lal Chand Jain (Dead) Vs. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna and others reported in 1996 SCC (3) 149, wherein it was held as following that

“Procedure is the handmaid to the substantive justice. The suit was laid against the Sangh represented by the Manager, Mr. GorelalSoni, the President, Shiv BehariSrivastav, a practising advocate and also a member who is none other than a Head Master of a school, three of them had Jointly filed the written statement with the defence available to them. The trial Court had proceeded on that basis. After framing the appropriate issues, the trial Court had accepted the plea of the defendants and dismissed the suit. On appeal, when the correctness thereof was canvassed, the respondents defended the action. The High Court on consideration of the evidence, did not accept the plea of the Sangh and accordingly, granted a