Judgment :- 1. The Clergy is in Court. The Bishops are looking up to the Bar and the Bench. The sight is symbolic of the turbulent times that the society is passing through. What is the cause before the Court? An appeal against an order of interim injunction. 2. An application under 0.39 R.1 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-respondents has been allowed by the First Addl. District Judge, Ernakulam. The sole defendant has been "restrained by a temporary injunction order from acting as the Catholicos elect or Bishop and from entering into any of the Parish churches of Malankara Church, administered under 1934 constitution, coming within the Angamaly, Kandanadu and Cochin Dioceses of Malankara Church " Hence, this appeal by the defendant. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal may be briefly noticed. 3. The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit in their personal capacity as well as representatives of all the members of the Catholicos group of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The first respondent alleges that he is the Metropolitan of the Chengannur Diocese. The 2nd respondent claims that he is the Metropolitan of the Cochin Diocese. The 3rd respondent is priest of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. It is alleged that the Malankara Church consists of 1064 Parish Churches. These are to be administered under the 1934 Constitution by the Malankara Association. This constitution lays down the procedure for the appointment of Bishops and Metropolitans. The Association has to elect the Bishop. This election has to be approved by the Holy Episcopal Synod. Further steps for consecration etc. are duly laid down. According to the plaintiff-respondents, no one can become a Bishop of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church unless the procedure prescribed in the 1934 constitution is followed. 4. The plaintiff-respondents have alleged in the pleadings that the sole defendant (now the appellant) "was a priest called Fr. Thomas". He had not been elected, approved or consecrated in accordance with the Constitution. He had not "submitted a Salmoosa to the Catholicos nor does he have a Sthathicon from the Catholicos. In short, he is not a Bishop or Metropolitan as far as the Parish churches are concerned. Thomas". He had not been elected, approved or consecrated in accordance with the Constitution. He had not "submitted a Salmoosa to the Catholicos nor does he have a Sthathicon from the Catholicos. In short, he is not a Bishop or Metropolitan as far as the Parish churches are concerned. However, he is illegally using the appellation of Mar Dionysius permitted only for lawful Bishops; wearing the ceremonial robes of a Bishop; ordaining laymen as priests; entering the Parish Churches in Kandanadu, Kochi and Angamali Dioceses as Bishop and performing religious rites. He is also styling himself as the president of a parallel Episcopal Synod, when no such Synod exists". It was further alleged that vide judgment dated June 1, 1990, passed in A.S. 331 of 1980, the High Court of Kerala had declared that "the defendant is not a legally consecrated Metropolitan of the Malankara Church". He was prohibited from ordaining laymen as priests or deacons, or performing any other sacraments service etc. for the Malankara Church or its institutions. The appeal against this judgment was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the decree was affirmed. Despite that the defendant was claiming the benefit of subsequent direction given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews (AIR 1996 SC 3121). He was "pretending to be the Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocese". On June 20,1995, H.G.Philipose Mar Theophilaos of the Catholicos group was the Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocese. He had become the Metropolitan in the year 1966. He had passed away in 1997. He had no rival. Thus, he is not entitled to the benefit of the order of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. The defendant is not the lawful Metropolitan of any of the Dioceses including Kandanadu, Cochin and Angamali. He is defying the Constitution and the supreme authority of the Catholicos. 5. On these and other allegations, the plaintiff-respondents maintain that the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of the order in the above noted decision. Thus, they prayed that an injunction prohibiting him from wearing ceremonial robes of Bishop etc be issued. 6. Along with the plaint, an application for the grant of temporary injunction was filed. 7. The defendant-appellant filed a counter affidavit running into 44 pages. Thus, they prayed that an injunction prohibiting him from wearing ceremonial robes of Bishop etc be issued. 6. Along with the plaint, an application for the grant of temporary injunction was filed. 7. The defendant-appellant filed a counter affidavit running into 44 pages. It was inter-alia pleaded that he "is the senior-most Metropolitan of the Patriarch faction and, therefore, functions as the President of the Episcopal Synod of Patriarch Faction. This is consistent with the Supreme Court judgment and decree and do(es) not violate 1934 Constitution". 8. The plaintiffs filed a reply affidavit. 9. The trial court considered and decided the matter vide its order dated August 3, 2002. It noticed that while considering the grant of temporary injunction the relevant facts were:? (i) Whether the petitioners have a prima facie case? (ii) In whose favour the balance of convenience lies? (iii) Who will suffer injury, if injunction is granted or refused? 10. The trial court considered the various decisions of the Supreme Court. In particular, it noticed the order dated July 12, 2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8185 of 2001 by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. After consideration of the matter, it found that "1934 constitution does not provide for having two Catholicos or two Malankara Metropolitan at a time". The "fact that respondent (the present appellant) was not elected to the office of the Bishop or Metropolitan, that he was not approved by the Episcopal Synod of the Malankara Church and that he was not consecrated as Bishop or Metropolitan by the Catholicos are not at all in dispute". Thus, it concluded that, "prima facie, respondent cannot claim any right in Angamaly, Kandanadu and Cochin Diosceses which are constituent units of Malankara Church, governed by 1934 constitution". Consequently, it answered the first question against the present appellant. 11. It was further noticed in Para.17 that the "serene and avowed object of striking finality by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this Church controversy is to see that peace, harmony and unity (are) restored among the members of the Malankara Church. These aspects are so glaring and visible from the judgments pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners". Thus, even the second question was answered in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. 12. These aspects are so glaring and visible from the judgments pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners". Thus, even the second question was answered in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. 12. Regarding the third question also the court was of the view that failure to pass an order of injunction would cause injury to the petitioners and the Malankara Church. Thus the injunction as prayed for was issued. 13. Aggrieved by the order, the defendant has filed the present appeal. 14. Mr. S.V.S. Ayyar, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiffs-respondents had filed the suit on July 6, 2001. The rights of the parties had to be adjudicated as on the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs-respondents had merely sought a negative declaration and a consequential injunction. In this suit, there was no occasion for the issue of a temporary injunction. He further contended that the trial court had decided the question of temporary injunction vide its order dated August 3, 2002. Thereafter, the managing committee had elected a Bishop on August 7, 2002. The counsel contended that the Supreme Court having approved the election of the new Managing Committee vide its order dated July 12, 2002, the suit had been rendered infructuous. Thus, no order of injunction can be allowed to continue. In any case, the Churches had not been impleaded as parties. Thus, no order affecting the management of the Churches could have been passed in their absence. 15. The claim as made on behalf of the appellant was controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. It was contended that the suit was maintainable. S.34 of the Specific Relief Act was not exhaustive. A negative declaration was permissible. The trial court had rightly issued the injunction. The order was in conformity with the law and the 1934 constitution. The present appellant was the second respondent in the case decided by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated June 1, 1990 in A.S. No. 331 of 1980. No relief having been sought against the churches, if was not necessary to implead them as parties. 16. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find that the following questions arise for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the suit had been rendered infructuous? No relief having been sought against the churches, if was not necessary to implead them as parties. 16. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find that the following questions arise for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the suit had been rendered infructuous? (ii) Whether the application for grant of temporary injunction was liable to be dismissed on the ground that Churches had not been impleaded as parties? (iii) Did the trial court act illegally in passing the impugned order of injunction? 17. Before proceeding to consider the questions as posed above, it may be noticed that 'Malankara' means "Malayalam speaking". The word 'church' refers both to the "Christian religious community and to the building used for Christian worship (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 5, P. 739)". According to Black's Law Dictionary church "in its most general sense" means "the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ to receive, preserve and propagate His doctrines and ordinances. It may also mean a body of communicants gathered into church order; body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith and the observance of the same ritual and ceremonies the place where persons regularly assemble for worship; congregation; organization for religious purposes; religious society or body' the clergy or officialdom of a religious body". Similarly 'metropolitan' means "pertaining to a city or metropolis and the cluster of towns surrounding it. In ecclesiastical matters, the head of province or an archbishop". A 'primate' means "a chief ecclesiastic, an archbishop, who has jurisdiction over his province, or one of several metropolitans presiding over others". 'Sind' is "a meeting or assembly of ecclesiastic persons concerning religions". 18. A brief reference to history also appears to be apt. There are "two rival groups of Jacobite Christian community of Malankara". The litigation "has been going on for more than hundred years apparently for religious and spiritual supremacy over the Church but really for administrative control and temporal powers over vast assets which have accumulated out of 3000 Star Pagodas created in Trust in 1808 for charitable purpose by one Moran Mar Marthoma VI". Ultimately on December 26,1934 a constitution was adopted. It provides for various matters concerning the Malankara Church and Association. This constitution has been periodically amended. Even thereafter, the disputes have continued to arise. The Courts have periodically considered these. Ultimately on December 26,1934 a constitution was adopted. It provides for various matters concerning the Malankara Church and Association. This constitution has been periodically amended. Even thereafter, the disputes have continued to arise. The Courts have periodically considered these. The matter was considered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No. 331 of 1980, decided on June 1, 1990. The appeal was decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma and Ann, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 286,1996 (8) SCC 470 and 1997 (10) SCC 614. The applications for correction of the decree were disposed of by order dated May 5,1999. 19. While delivering the judgment on June 20, 1995 reported in 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 286 it was, inter alia, held at page 394 as under:? "Thereafter, elections to the Malankara Association shall be held on the basis of the amended Constitution. The Association so elected shall be the Association for all purposes with the meaning of and for the purposes of the 1934 Constitution (as amended from time to time)". 20. In pursuance to the above and the subsequent orders the elections were held in the year 2002 under the supervision of a court observer. A report dated April 10, 2002 was submitted to the court. Thereafter vide order dated July 12, 2002, their Lordships were pleased to order as under:? "The Malankara Association as convened by the order of this Court dated 28th November, 2001 having decided by majority that Moran Mar Baselious Mar Thoma Mathews II is the Malankara Metropolitan, this decision is declared final and binding and not subject to challenge in any Court or any other forum (as provided in the previous order dated 28th November, 2001 of this Court)". 21. It is in the background of the above sequence of events that the questions as arising in this case have to be considered. Regarding (i) : Whether the suit had been rendered infructuous? 22. Mr. Ayyar contended that after the decision by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the election held on August 7, the suit had been rendered infructuous. Is it so? 23. A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant shows that even the maintainability of the suit has been questioned. 22. Mr. Ayyar contended that after the decision by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the election held on August 7, the suit had been rendered infructuous. Is it so? 23. A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant shows that even the maintainability of the suit has been questioned. Still further, there is a dispute between the parties regarding the facts as pleaded in the plaint. 24. The trial court has yet to go into these issues. It has not so far decided as to whether or not the suit is maintainable. Prima facie, it appears that the dispute as arising in this case falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court. In any event, it may be fair to say that the jurisdiction of the Court is not barred. Yet it cannot be said that the issues as arising in the case have been decided. It is true that the law laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court binds everyone in the country. Yet, facts have to be found. Only then law can be applied. Still further, it deserves notice that the suit is not merely for the issue of a declaration regarding the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of the order of status quo passed by their lordships reported in AIR 1996 SC 3121. The plaintiff has also prayed for the issue of an injunction against the defendant appellant. This relief was sought on the ground that the appellant had not been duly elected or consecrated as a Bishop or Metropolitan. The trial court has yet to decide this matter. In such a situation, it is not possible to hold that the suit has already been rendered infructuous. 25. In the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the claim on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the suit has been rendered infructuous and thus, the order passed by the trial court be annulled, cannot be sustained. Regarding (ii): Whether the application for grant of temporary injunction was liable to be dismissed on the ground that Churches had not been impleaded as parties? 26. Mr. Ayyar contended that the Churches were necessary parties. No order could have been passed in their absence. Is it so? 27. It is true that no person can be condemned without being heard. 26. Mr. Ayyar contended that the Churches were necessary parties. No order could have been passed in their absence. Is it so? 27. It is true that no person can be condemned without being heard. No order can be passed to the prejudice of a person unless he has been impleaded as a party. However, in the present case, the plaintiff-respondents have not sought any relief against any Church. It has not been shown that the respondents have sought any declaration against a Church or claimed any relief in that behalf. Thus, the Churches were not necessary parties and the objection as raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained. Resultantly, even the second question is answered against the appellant. Regarding (iii) : Did the trial court act illegally in passing the impugned order of injunction? 28. Mr. Ayyar contended that the trial court has erred in granting the injunction. Is it so? 29. Undoubtedly, litigation has been going on between two factions of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church for a long time. Shorn of all details, it appears to be fair to say that the Apex Court has drawn a curtain on the controversy by its order dated July 12, 2002. It has been observed that the elections of the members of the managing committee of the Malankara Association as reported by the Court Observer in its report dated April 10, 2002 have been approved. It has also been observed that no court shall entertain any claim challenging the election. Admittedly, the appellant does not claim to have been elected to the managing committee. He also does not claim to have been elected as the Metropolitan. Still further, nothing was pointed out from the record to show that the appellant was entitled to act as the Catholicos elect, entering into any of the Parish churches in Angamaly, Kandanadu and Cochn Dioceses or to issue orders for ordaining priests or deacons and to perform other services. In this situation, it cannot be said that the trial court had erred in issuing the injunction. 30. It deserves notice that the trial court has examined all relevant facts, which were necessary for the disposal of the miscellaneous petition. It has taken into account the relevant facts like the justification of the cause, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 30. It deserves notice that the trial court has examined all relevant facts, which were necessary for the disposal of the miscellaneous petition. It has taken into account the relevant facts like the justification of the cause, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. On a consideration of all the matters, the court has taken a possible and reasonable view. The appellate court can interfere only when the order is found to be arbitrary, unjust, unfair or illegal. In the present case, we do not find any ground to interfere. 31. The trial court has found that the Malankara Metropolitan is also the Catholicos. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that such an arrangement is not permitted under the Constitution of 1934. On behalf of the respondent it was pointed out that under Art.97 the Metropolitan has to be elected by the Association. Under Art.98, the Catholicos is permitted to "also hold the office of the Malankara Metropolitan". It has been further provided that "when the Catholicos and the Malankara Metropolitan happened to be two individuals, regulations needed shall be made about respective rights and powers". Thus, it is clear that the Catholicos can be the Malankara Metropolitan also and that if two individuals hold the two offices, then regulations are needed. Nothing has been pointed out from the record to show that any regulation has been framed. Thus, it appears prima facie safe to conclude that both the offices can be held by one individual. 32. Thus, the third question is also answered against the appellant. It is held that the learned trial court has not erred in issuing the injunction. 33. Before parting with the case, we may only observe that the Bible tells us to forgive our enemies. It has been said, "Christians and camels receive their burdens kneeling". We should follow this ideal. It should be a common goal. 34. Today, there is a devaluation of the values. Resultantly, man and misery are constant companions. The people need the Church "which holds the world within its starlit aisles; that claims the great and good of every race and clime; that finds with joy the grain of gold in every creed, and floods with light and love the germs of good in every soul". Not the Church that Fights. God and not gold has to be the modern man's goal. Not the Church that Fights. God and not gold has to be the modern man's goal. The Christian Church must work for the perfection of society. Only preserving its purity can preserve the peace of the Church. 35. As for the present appeal, we find no ground to interfere. It is dismissed. No costs.