JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 r/w Order 3 Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules of C.P.C., praying to revoke the leave granted to the first respondent in A.No.2915 of 2021 to file the suit against defendants 2 and 3.)

1. The applicant herein is the third defendant in the suit. The application has been filed by him seeking revocation of leave granted by this Court in A.No.2915 of 2021, dated 26.08.2021, at the instance of the first respondent herein, the plaintiff in the suit. This Court has granted leave to file a suit against the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. This Court being satisfied with the reasons set forth in the affidavit filed in support of that application and finding a part of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Court, has granted leave as prayed for in that application.

2. While granting leave, this Court has also taken into consideration that the election to the Kanyakumari Diocese which is the subject matter of lis in the suit, was a result of permission being granted by the first respondent Synod, the Apex Body of the Church of South India (hereinafter referred to as CSI), having its address at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. The fourth respondent/fourth defendant is the Moderator and the head of the CSI Church, having his office as above. Having perused certain communications exchanged between the applicant herein and the Apex Body viz., the Synod, the first respondent herein, finding substance in the application seeking leave to sue, leave was granted by this Court on 26.08.2021.

3. In the above backdrop, the facts and circumstances that led to the filing of the leave application and the present one, are briefly stated hereunder:

(a) The second respondent/defendant being the Supreme Governing Body of the CSI and in control of all the dioceses spread across the Southern part of India, any election to the individual diocese is to be conducted under its supervision and oversight, in terms of the CSI Constitution. According to the applicant, the election to the second defendant Diocese was already overdue and therefore, permission to conduct election at a later point of time was to be obtained from the Apex Body, in terms of the CSI Constitution.

(b) In the above circumstances, the applicant herein, the Bishop and the Election Officer of the third defendant Kanyakumari Diocese, sought permission vide his letter dated 26.05.2021, from the Apex Body, the Synod, seeking extension of time for the conduct of election to the Diocese in terms of the CSI Constitution. In consideration of the request, the Apex Body which is in over all control of all the Dioceses including the second respondent Diocese, the first defendant Synod vide its reply dated 08.06.2021, directed the diocese to convene the council meeting within three months from the expiry of the term of the old council in terms of its constitutional provisions. In pursuance of the exchange of communication between the first defendant and the third defendant, final notice dated 10.08.2021, was issued by the second defendant announcing the date of election to the Diocese, which is the subject matter of the main lis in the suit. The leave to sue had been granted in the above factual context to sue the respondents 2 and 3 herein, who are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

(c) The applicant herein, the third defendant in the suit appeared to have been aggrieved by the discretionary power exercised by this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, has come up with the present application to revoke the leave on two grounds.

(i) that the suit being filed in a representative capacity and against the unregistered body, permission ought to have been obtained under Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C. Failure to comply with Order I Rule 8 by the applicant/plaintiff resulted in plaint not being in accordance with the provisions of Order II of the Original Side R