BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and CMP(MD) No.3051 of 2026 The Members of the Church Committee Thottavaram C.S.I. Pastorate Church Rep by its, Secretary ... Petitioner vs.

1.N.James

2.The Bishop C.S.I. Kanyakumari Diocese Office, No.71 Dennis Street, Agasteeswaram Taluk Nagercoil Kanyakumari District.

3.The Pastor Thottavaram C.S.I Pastorate Church Athoor Village Moovattumugam Post Thiruvattar Taluk Kanyakumari District.

4.M.G.Jacob

5.Munisha ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.60 of 2024 dated 25.10.2025 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Padmanabapuram, Kanyakumari District.

For Petitioner : Mr.X.Xavier Rajini For R1 : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy For R2 : Mr.G.Sailendar Babu

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the third defendant in the suit. It raises an interesting question of law as to whether the Court has the inherent power to permit withdrawal of a withdrawal of a suit.

2.O.S.No.60 of 2024 was presented by the first respondent herein for the following relief:-

“A. A decree declaring the 2024-2027 triennial elections of the Thottavaram C.S.I. Church held on

18.02.2024 as null and void.

B. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 3^rd defendant members of the Church Committee represented by its Secretary from functioning as the Committee members of the Thottavaram C.S.I.Church.”

3.This suit was filed by the plaintiff for himself and on behalf of the members of the Thottavaram CSI Pastorate Church. It is an Order I Rule 8 proceeding. After the suit had been presented and numbered, a brain wave struck the plaintiff that he could knock at the doors of this Court challenging the election by way a writ petition. Accordingly, he filed a memo before the Trial Court, seeking permission to withdraw the suit. Recording the memo, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.08.2024.

4.A writ petition was presented seeking more or less the same relief as sought for in O.S.No.60 of 2024. This Court entertained the W.P.(MD).No.14713 of 2024. After hearing all the sides, the writ petition came to be dismissed on 03.12.2024, holding that a writ petition is tenable, only when the CSI is discharging a public function and not when other matters are the subject matter of the writ petition. At that stage, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought liberty from the Writ Court to challenge the election, in a manner known to law. This Court granted the liberty. It is recorded in paragraph number 8 of the order.

5.Strengthened by the liberty so granted, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2025, seeking permission of the Court to recall the order of dismissal of the suit as withdrawn on 05.08.2024. Notice was ordered in this application to the respondents. After hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, allowed the application on 25.10.2025, holding that the Court has the inherent power to restore a suit, which had been dismissed as withdrawn.

Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition.

6.The following facts are not in dispute.

7.A suit had been filed for declaration that the election for the Pastorate is null and void. The suit was withdrawn without liberty. For the very same relief, a writ petition came to be filed. The writ petition was dismissed on two grounds. First, the writ is not maintainable and second, the suit challenging the election had been withdrawn without a liberty to approach the High Court. While dismissing the writ petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner, who is the plaintiff/first respondent herein, to challenge the process of election. The doors of the Civil Court were not firmly locked by the Court. Taking advantage of this liberty, the petitioner filed an application for restoration.

8.I heard Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, for the petitioner