ANNAJOTHI Vs. S.JAINSTON SIGAMONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST defendant in O.S.No.3507 of 2012 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. C.R.P. PD No.2410 of 2012 was filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.3507 of 2012 and C.R.P.PD No.2411 of 2012 was filed challenging the order passed in the application in I.A.No.8646 of 2012 in O.S.No.3507 of 2012.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the first respondent/plaintiff challenging the election held for the Seynamvilai CSI Church Committee for the triennium 2012-2015 on 4.3.2012 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from permitting the elected persons to participate in the Church Committee Meeting of CSI Seynamvilai Church and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing the membership of the plaintiff in the Seynamvilai CSI Church and submitted that having regard to the elections mentioned in the plaint as well as the relief prayed for, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Kanyakumari Munsif Court and therefore, the suit filed before the City Civil Court is not maintainable and the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction and therefore, the plaint has to be struck off. He further submitted that the court below, without any application of mind granted the order of ad interim injunction by passing a non-speaking order and therefore, the order of ad interim injunction is liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgment rendered in O.A.No.1181 of 2007 and Application Nos.6913 and 7394 to 7396 of 2007 in C.S.No.942 of 2007 on the file of this court on the Original Side dated 11.12.2007 and the order passed in C.R.P. PD Nos.3589 to 3600 and 3733 of 2012 dated 10.10.2011 and the judgment in J.M.RICHARD v. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA SYNOD ((2012) 3 MLJ 394), M.ISAAC, S/o. MUTHAIH v. THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA (2009 (2) CTC 631) and ARUVIPURAM DHARMA PARIPALAN YOGAM and OTHERS v. K.KARUNAKARAN (2012-1-LW 252) in support of his contention.

(3.) TO appreciate the contention of both the parties, we will have to see the plaint allegations. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that whenever an application is filed to reject the plaint, the court has to consider the averments made in the plaint to arrive at a conclusion and other materials should not be taken into consideration, unless they are admitted. A reading of the plaint makes it clear that the entire cause of action arose at Bethelpuram and the election was conducted on 4.3.2012 for the Seynamvilai Church and except by impleading defendants 3 and 4, no averment has been made to clothe the jurisdiction on the City Civil Court. Admittedly, the election was conducted for the Seynamvilai Church Committee for the triennium 2012-2015 on 4.3.2012 at Bethelpuram and in that election, the revision petitioner was elected and it is alleged that the entire election process was against the bye-laws of the CSI Kanyakumari Diocese and the election petition was filed on 15.3.2012 before the second defendant having office at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and he confirmed the election by its order dated 17.8.2012 and appeal lies to the CSI Synod and it is not sated that appeal has been filed before the CSI Synod, having office at Chennai and under the cause of action paragraph also it is not stated that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Chennai Court except saying that CSI Synod which is the Apex Body is having office at Chennai and therefore, the Civil Civil Court has got jurisdiction. This court had occasion to deal with the similar circumstances in the judgment reported in 2009 (2) CTC 631 wherein this court has held as follows:-