Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C.SARAVANAN, JJ
D.Neegar Prince Giftson – Appellant
Versus
Church of South India, Represented by its General Secretary, CSI Synod Secretariat, CSI Centre, No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. – Respondent
O.S.A.No. 270 of 2025 | C.M.P.Nos.19672, 21666, 21644 & 21649 of 2025 | C.S.No.225 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Ramesh, M/s.Easter Legal
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel, Mr.Adrian D.Rozario, Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel, Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel, Mr.Kingsley Solomon
Once a plaintiff withdraws a suit without seeking liberty, the court ceases jurisdiction and cannot issue further orders related to the suit, as affirmed by prior rulings.
Headnote:(A) Original Side Rules - Order 36 Rule 9 - Letters Patent - Validity of elections conducted by Church - Appellants sought a declaration that communications passed by administrators are null and void with a grant for permanent injunction. The Supreme Court upheld the election of office bearers, leading to the withdrawal of the suit by the appellants which was permitted by the trial Court. The Court ruled that, post withdrawal, no further directions regarding administrators or elections could be issued. (Paras 4, 8-12)
(B) Withdrawal of Suit - The Court affirmed that the withdrawal without liberty leads to cessation of jurisdiction over the suit, hence no further applications can be entertained following such withdrawal. This stands supported by precedence from earlier rulings accepting the extinction of rights post withdrawal. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged communications made by Church administrators and sought an injunction restraining interference with their functioning, amidst prior litigations concerning Church administration and elections.
Findings of Court:
The High Court allowed suit withdrawal based on the Supreme Court's order validating the prior elections, concluding that plaintiffs lost standing once they withdrew their suit. Consequently, interim appointing arrangements were rendered void.
Issues: The Court focused on the efficacy of an interim administrator's role post-suit withdrawal and the status of elections upheld by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that once a suit is withdrawn simpliciter without further rights retained, the authority of the court ceases, making any interim orders ineffective and emphasizing the need for adherence to constitutional protocols by the Church.
Result: Original Side Appeal stands partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to previous injunction and administration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. supreme court ruling on elections adherence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. withdrawal of suit implications. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. withdrawal of suit ends court jurisdiction. (Para 9) |
| 5. jurisdiction ceases post withdrawal. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. confirmation of withdrawal dismissal. (Para 12) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The present Original Side Appeal has been instituted challenging the judgment dated 11.07.2025 in C.S.No.225 of 2024.
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the present appeal. The suit was instituted seeking a declaration of the communications dated 30.04.2024, 03.05.2024 and 22.05.2024 passed by the 2nd defendant the Administrators, Church of South India as null and void and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, representative from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiffs and other office bearers. It is an admitted fact between the parties that several litigations have been instituted between the parties regarding administration and elections of the Church of South India.
3. In the suit in C.S.No.225 of 2024 an interim injunction was initially granted in O.A.No.688 of 2024 and the 3rd defendant filed an application in A.No.5391 of 2024 to vacate the interim injunction granted. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 11.12.2024 allowing the petition filed to vacate the interim injunction ordered and O.A.No.688 of 2024 was dismissed. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge O.S.A.No.247 of 2024 was filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs. By consent of the parties, the Division Bench appointed an interim Administrator for administering the day to day affairs of the Church of South India, Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese and to hold election, which is due for the Diocese. The order was passed on 18.12.2024. Subsequently the said order was modified by consent and the Hon'bel Mr.Justice P.Jothimani, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as an interim Administrator in the place of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar, the retired Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir by order dated 10.01.2025.
4. When the matter stands as this, parallel proceedings initiated challenging the administration and conduct of election for the Synod was taken up for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. A batch of Special Leave Petitions have been instituted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, all connected with election of office bearers to Synod and the administration of Synod. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had elaborately considered the issue relating to election of Synod and Administration of the Church of South India vide order dated 2nd May 2025 and in para 60.1 the Hon'ble Apex Court made findings as follows:-
60.1 Since the findings and conclusions of the learned Division Bench have been set aside, the order previously passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand restored and will continue to remain in force. Consequently, the elections conducted for the other office bearers—namely, the Deputy Moderator, the General Secretary, and the Treasurer—shall be deemed valid and will continue to hold legal sanctity but will be subject to the outcome of the suits.
5. The conclusion made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the batch of Special Leave Petitions is available in para 64 to 66, which read as under:-
In light of the foregoing reasons, the following orders passed by the subordinate courts are hereby quashed by this Court:
64. In the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the appeals stand disposed of and the common order dated 05.09.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in O.A. No. 818/2022, O.A. No. 819/2022 and A. No. 5961/2022 in C.S. No. 274/2022 and O.A. No. 21/2023, O.A. No. 22/2023 and O.A. No. 190/2023 in C.S. No. 7/2023, findings regarding Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC are hereby quashed to such extent. Furthermore, the impugned orders dated 12.04.2024 pa
