Judgment :- Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the court below has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed against the East Kerala Maha Edavaka of the Church of South India as well as against the Bishop and others in view of the Constitution of the Church of South India. 2. The suit was instituted challenging the election and appointment of the 2nd defendant as Bishop of the CSI east Kerala Maha Edavaka and also for other consequential reliefs. First defendant initiated proceedings for election of its Bishop by a notice dated 16-8-89 and second defendant was elected as its Bishop. The decision was approved by the council meeting held at Melukavu which was subsequently announced by the Commisory of the Moderator, the 11th defendant in the suit. Plaintiffs have raised a contention that the election of second respondent as Bishop is invalid because it is contrary to the rules framed for the election of Bishops laid down in Chapter IV of the Constitution. Preliminary objection was raised by defendants 1 and 2 stating that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the courts at Madras have only got jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per Rule 2(a) of Chapter XI in view of the amendment carried out to the Constitution of the Church of South India (S. 84 : 40). IA. 2080 of 1993 was filed for hearing the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 3. The court below has taken the view that since the 2nd defendant Bishop resides within the jurisdiction of that court, the court can proceed with the suit in view of the ruling reported in Community Chit Funds (P) Ltd. v. Karim (1990 (1) KLT 345). It was also noticed that the date of effecting the amendment was not gatherable from the amendment of the Constitution produced by the defendants. Further it was also stated that without taking evidence, it was not possible for the court to come to a conclusion as to whether the amendments were effected after the filing of the suit as alleged by the plaintiffs. The court also took the view that even though the office of the Synod is situated at Madras in view of the provisions in Section 20 CPC the court has got territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. The court also took the view that even though the office of the Synod is situated at Madras in view of the provisions in Section 20 CPC the court has got territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. Defendants contention that the plaintiffs have got alternate remedy under the Constitution was also not accepted. Court took the view that the court has got jurisdiction to decide the suit. Aggrieved by the same this revision petition has been preferred. 4. Sri. P.K. Joseph, counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below has committed an error in holding that the court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Counsel submitted that the court below has not properly appreciated various provisions of the Constitution of the Church of South India. Counsel also submitted that the court below has committed an error in holding that the amendments were effected after the filing of the suit. Counsel submitted that since the suit has been instituted against the first defendant and against the CSI Synod the same can be entertained only by the courts at Madras as per the Constitution of the Church of South India. Counsel referred to Chapter XI Rules 2 and 2(a) and other related provisions of the Constitution and contended that the suit could be instituted before the courts which were/are having territorial jurisdiction over the office of the Synod or its Secretariat since the Moderator and Deputy Moderator respectively are the officers of the Synod and they are made parties to the suit. Apex court in Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Limited v. Rama Mishra 2002(9) SCC 613 held that in case parties under their own agreement expressly agree that their dispute shall be tried by only one of the specified courts then the parties can only file the suit in that court alone to which they have so agreed. Apex court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem (AIR 1989 SC 1239) held that when the court has to decide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster clause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression or clause properly. This court has therefore to examine the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Church of South India to decide the question as to whether the suit can be instituted only at Madras. 5. This court has therefore to examine the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Church of South India to decide the question as to whether the suit can be instituted only at Madras. 5. The Church of ‘South India is the Church constituted by the union in 1947 of the Madras, Madura, Malabar, Jafna, Kannada, Telugu and Travancore Church Councils of the South India United Church; the South India Province of the Methodist Church, comprising the Madras, Trichinopoly, Hyderabad and Mysore districts, and the dioceses of Madras, Dornakal, Tinnevelly, and Travancore and Cochin in the Church of India, Burma and Ceylon, to which in 1950 was added the North Tamil Church Council of the South India United Church. The office of the Synod and/or its Secretariat shall be situate at No.222 Cathedral Road, Madras, and/or at such other place or places as the Synod, its Executive Committee or Working Committee may from time to time decide. Chapter XI, Rule 2(a) is the relevant clause which determines the jurisdiction in case dispute arises, which reads as follows: “All the members of the Church hereby agree that if any legal proceedings are to be instituted by any such member and in which the Officers of the Synod are made parties, such suit shall be instituted only in such court within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Synod and/or its Secretariat is at that time situate (S.84 : 40). Chapter XI Rule 1 of the Constitution states that all members of the church of South India by reason of their being baptized and/or confirmed or admitted as members of this church have agreed to abide by the Rules and Regulations contained in the Constitution of the Synod of the Church and its Dioceses. Further Chapter XI Rule 2 states that by reason of Clause 1 above, the constitution of the Synod of the Church of South India is a contract between the church and each member and members (Whether collectively or individually) and the provisions therein shall be binding on all such members concerned. Further Chapter XI Rule 2 states that by reason of Clause 1 above, the constitution of the Synod of the Church of South India is a contract between the church and each member and members (Whether collectively or individually) and the provisions therein shall be binding on all such members concerned. Chapter XI Rule 2 states that all members, ministers and Bishops of the Church of South India by their acceptance of membership therein, and in the case of ministers and Bishops by making a formal declaration of acceptance of this constitution shall be deemed to have entered into a contract to be bound by the rules of the church. Chapter IX Rule 6 of the CSI Constitution is about the Officers of the Synod. The 12th defendant in the suit is the Office/Secretariat of the Synod. The Moderator, Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer are the Officers of the Synod. I have already indicated that as per Chapter XI Rule 2(a), the suit could be instituted only before the courts which were/are having territorial jurisdiction over the office of the Synod or its Secretariat since the Moderator and Deputy Moderator are parties to the suit. Consequently the legal proceedings has to be instituted against the officers of the Synod only in such courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Synod and/or its Secretariat is situate. Synod and Secretariat are admittedly situated at Madras and, going by the Constitution the suit could be instituted only at Madras. 6. Court below expressed a doubt as to whether amendment has been effected subsequent to the filing of the suit. In Chapter XI Rule 2(a), the authority quoted as S.84:40, which means, the amendment was effected in the year 1984 Synod as per resolution No.40. Like the above other provisions also show the authority of amendments effected and a similar note is contained in the 2nd cover page of the Constitution of the Church of South India. I have perused the said Constitution. Like the above other provisions also show the authority of amendments effected and a similar note is contained in the 2nd cover page of the Constitution of the Church of South India. I have perused the said Constitution. Going by the annexure, amendments and the 1992 edition of the CSI Constitution, the amendment excluding jurisdiction of other courts than that of the courts within whose jurisdiction the office of the synod and/or its secretariat situate in case of legal proceedings where the officers of the Synod are made parties was inserted as resolution No.40 of the year 1984 Synod much prior to the institution of the above suit. The suit was instituted on 9th February, 1990. Court below has therefore committed an error in holding that the amendments were effected after the filing of the suit. That being the factual and legal position I am in agreement with the revision petitioners that the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 7. Counsel appearing for the petitioners also stated that the plaintiffs have got an alternate remedy under the Constitution. Chapter VII Rule 4(a) of the CSI Constitution, which was incorporated in the year 1980 Synod as resolution 20, prevents a member or employee of the CSI, either for enforcing rights under its constitution or under the constitution of any of the dioceses and/or in relation to any of the committees/boards constituted under the Constitution or on account of the alleged violation in any manner of such rights, from going to a court either as plaintiff or complainant without first submitting his case in writing to the Bishop and also provides for constitution of the arbitration board and for reference of the case to it. Chapter XI (a) is yet another provision provides for settlement of disputes. According to Rule 3 therein all disputes of any nature whatsoever concerning the affairs of the Synod and/or any matter in relation to the Synod and/or any of its institutions shall be resolved only by arbitration and in the manner provided in the said Chapter. 8. I am of the view since I have already found that the court below has no jurisdiction the contention that alternate remedy is available to the plaintiff need not be examined further. 8. I am of the view since I have already found that the court below has no jurisdiction the contention that alternate remedy is available to the plaintiff need not be examined further. Under the above mentioned reasons I am inclined to allow the revision petition and hold that the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The parties, if so advised, shall file the suit before the court having jurisdiction if legally permissible. CRP is allowed as above.