Advocates:
['m/s v kannan', 'M/S ADRIAN D ROZARIO', '', 'SHEELA D ROZARIO', 'FOR R', 'R', 'R', 'FOR R OR amp;R D NO TO', 'CS D', '', 'A amp', 'CS D', 'N NO', 'SOUTH ST', 'VENKATESAPURAM COLONY', 'AYANAVARAM', 'CH', 'M/S S BHARATHIRAJAN', 'R NATRTAMIL', 'FOR R D NO', 'CS D', 'NO', 'L C HIGH CT CH', 'M/S ADRIAN D ROZARIAH', 'SHEELA D ROZARIA', 'FOR R D NO', 'FOR R D NO', 'CS D', 'M/s Adrian D Rozario', 'Sheela D Rozario']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

THURSDAY, THE 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

A.No.3655 and 3656 of 2017

in

C.S.Diary Nos.10685 of 2007

1. Miss.Roseann Rajan,

D/o P.N.Nagarajan

No.241/5, Rohini Flats,

7^th Avenue, Anna Nagar West,

Chennai 600 101.

2. P.N.Nagarajan

S/o P.A.Neelakantan

No.241/5, Rohini Flats,

7^th Avenue, Anna Nagar West,

Chennai 600 101.

...Applicants/Plaintiffs

.Vs.

1. The Church of South India,

Represented by its Secretary,

No.5, Whites Road,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

2. The Church of South India Trust Association,

Represented by its Secretary,

No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah,

Chennai-600 014.

3. Rev.Dr.D.Rathnakara Sadananda,

Secretary, The Church of South India,

No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah,

Chennai-600 014.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

4. Rt.Rev.Thomas K.Oomman,

Moderator, The Church of South India,

No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah,

Chennai-600 014.

5. Rev.Dr.Vadapalli Prasad Rao,

Deputy Moderator and Trustee,

The Church of South India,

Epiphany Cathedral Compound,

Dornakal, Warrangal,

Telungana State-506 381.

6. Mr.C.Robert Bruce, Trustee,

Treasurer, The Church of South India,

No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah,

Chennai-600 014.

7. Rt.Rev.G.Dyvasirvadam,

Bishop, representing The Church of South India,

St.Andrews Cathedral Compound,

Contonment Main Road,

Machilipattinam-531 002.

8. Rev.K.C.Richard Durai,

Vice-President,

L-30, Periyar Nagar,

Erode, Tamilnadu-638 001.

9. Dr.Bennet Abraham,

Trustee, Representing the Church of South India,

Dr.Somervell Memorial,

C.S.I. Medical College,

Karakonam, Thiruvanandapuram-695 504.

10. Prof.Dr.B.Vimal Sukumar,

Trustee, The Church of South India,

Plot No.127, Road No.3,

Dhanalakshmi Colony,

Mahedra Hills, Maredpalli,

Secunderabad-500 026.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3

11. Mr.Athur Sadhanandam,

Trustee, Representing The Church of South India,

No.30, 5th Bharadhidasan Street,

Madhi Nagar Extension,

Vellore-632 006.

12. Mr.Udayaraj Kaunds,

Trustee, Representing The Church of South India,

No.1101, Serenity Apartments,

Opp. Bijai Church Hall,

Mangalore-575 004, Karnataka.

13. Mr.G.Samuel Sudhir,

Trustee, Representing The Church of South India,

Bass Complex, Gopalreddy Road,

Governerpt, Vijayawada,

Andhra Pradesh - 520 002.

... Respondents/Defendants

A.No.3655 of 2021

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant

permission to Under Section 92 C.P.C. to institute the suit before this

Hon'ble Court.

A.No.3656 of 2021

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant me

leave to sue under Clause-12 of Letter Patent Act, the defendants 5,7, and 8

to 13 who are outside the Jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Court, as defendants

before this Hon'ble Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4

These Applictions having been heard on 21.09.2021 in the presence

of Mr.V.Kannan, advocate for the applicants in both applications and

M/s.Adrian D Rozario, Advocte for the respondents 1 to 6, 7, 9 to 13 in both

applications and upon reading the judges summons and the affidavit of

P.N.Nagarajan filed in both applications and having stood over for

consideration till this date and coming on this day before this court for

orders in the presence of the said advocates for the parties hereto, and this

Court observing that the leave to be sought under Section 92 CPC is a

serious matter questioning the management and administration of the public

charitable Trust, merely because the plaintiffs happened to be CSI Christian,

they cannot be considered as 'interested persons' in terms of Section 92

CPC, from the pleadings and the materials, this Court does s