Judgment :- 1. This petition is the latest addition to a long array and O.S. No. 111 of 1113 is itself one of a series of suits in which the dissensions among the Jacobite Syrian Christians have come up before the Civil Courts for adjudication. The wealth of historical material available in these cases makes a fascinating study but for the undertones of tragedy implicit in one of the most progressive communities of this State being unable to compose its differences. 2. The petitioner is the third plaintiff in O. S. No. 111 of 1113 and the 1st counter-petitioner, the first defendant. The second counter-petitioner is the vicar of the Mar Elia Chapel - item I of the plaint B schedule - who has been brought on record in pursuance of his application, C. M. P. No. 431 of 1953 from A. S. No. 1 of 1119 of Travancore High Court from O.S. No. 111 of 1113 of Kottayam District Court. 3. The provocation for the petition is the proposal to ordain some new bishops and the prayer is that orders should be passed : a) restraining the first counter-petitioner, from functioning as the Catholicos and ordaining new bishops; and b) directing the" receiver appointed in O. S. No. 111 of 1113 to take immediate possession of item 1 of the plaint B schedule. 4. O. S. No. 111 of 1113 was dismissed by the trial court at Kottayam and decreed by the High Court of Travancore (A. S. No.1 of 1119). A review was sought (Review Petition No. 42 of 1122-Tr.) and denied; an application for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution followed and was refused. Special leave to appeal under Article 136 (1), however, has since been granted by the Supreme Court of India and the matter is now pending disposal in that court. 5. For some of the items covered by O. S. No. Ill 41113 a receiver was appointed in C. M. P. No. 445 of 1952 of the Kottayam. District Court and that appointment was confirmed by this court in C. M. A. No. 38 of 1952. 5. For some of the items covered by O. S. No. Ill 41113 a receiver was appointed in C. M. P. No. 445 of 1952 of the Kottayam. District Court and that appointment was confirmed by this court in C. M. A. No. 38 of 1952. On the request for stay made before the Supreme Court the order was as follows: "AND THIS COURT DOTH make no order on the Application for stay AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that the Receiver appointed by the executing Court shall continue unless the Travancore-Cochin High Court directs otherwise AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that the said Receiver shall collect rents of such properties as yield rent and he shall not interfere with the present arrangement in regard to Churches, Seminars, Schools and residential houses unless the Travancore-Cochin High Court otherwise directs AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that in all matters regarding the management and supervision of the properties the said Receiver shall be guided by the orders of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in the same way as if the said Receiver was appointed by an Order of the paid High Court " 6. The receiver referred to must be the receiver appointed in C. M. P. No. 445 of 1952 and their Lordships were apparently under the impression, which I am told is not correct, that the churches, schools and seminars came within the ambit of his appointment. It is, however, clear that their Lordships were of the opinion that there should be no interference with the subsisting arrangements in regard to churches, schools and seminars unless otherwise directed by this Court. I see no reason to "otherwise direct" even if a receiver is available or appointed for the chapel in controversy. 7. An application for the appointment of a receiver for all the items not covered by the order in C. M. P. No. 445 of 1952 was filed before the District Court of Kottayam as C. M. P. No. 1372 of 1952 and that petition, as pointed out by this Court in C. M. A. No. 90 or 1952, now awaits its final decision. There is no prayer before me for a transfer of that petition to this court under section 20 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, 1125 and it will be a very incongruous procedure indeed if I were to appoint a receiver in these proceedings when a prayer for the identical relief is still pending before the lower court and will be coming up for disposal in due course. 8. When this position was explained to Mr. T. K. Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner, he said that he will be satisfied, for the present at any rate, with the issue of an injunction as sought in the petition. One of the reliefs granted by the appellate decree in A. S. No.1 of 1119 is a perpetual injunction restraining the first counter-petitioner from acting "in his professed capacity as Catholicos of the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church or as Malankara Metropolitan". The petitioner's contention before me is that the proposed ordination of five bishops is a direct violation of the perpetual injunction and it should follow that the petitioner's remedy is not a further injunction from this court but an enforcement of the decree already obtained under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 9. I have no doubt that the petition should be dismissed and I do so with the costs of the first counter-petitioner. The second counter-petitioner was brought on record not by the petitioner but at his own request and so, as far as he is concerned, I shall make no order as to costs. Dismissed.