Judgment :- Defendants 3,4 and 5 in the suit have filed this Civil Revision petition under Article 227of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to strike off the plaint in O.S.5562 of 2007 pending on the file of the XIIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The suit has been filed praying to declare in respect of Agenda No.12(a) of the notice of 4th defendant dated 14. 2007 as without jurisdiction and illegal. Further, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the resolution passed in the meeting dated 18. 2007 with regard to Agenda No.12(a) is illegal and non-est in the eye of law and for consequential injunction. 3. In the suit, the plaintiff has specifically stated in paragraph 2 that the second defendant is the supreme authority of all the 21 Diocese. Being the appellate authority, the 2nd defendant-CSI ought to have taken action against defendants 3 to 5. Even though in the suit, it is stated that the defendants 3 to 5/CSI are situated outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai, the case was laid on the basis that the second defendant being the Church of South India Synod represented by the Moderator, Chennai is under the control of the said Diocese of the 4th defendant. Apart from other 20 Diocese in the State, the second defendant being the appellate authority, has got responsibility. It is on that basis, the suit was laid in Chennai. 4. Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit is liable to be struck off on the ground that the provisions under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. has not been followed and it has to be taken as abuse of process of law. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Rev.Noble Gamberran and others Vs. Peter P.Ponnan reported in 1999-1-L.W.300. 5. He would further contend by referring to various parts of the plaint that one could see that no relief could be sought for against the second defendant-CSI, which alone is in Chennai, while the others are in Kanyakumari District and therefore, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In view of the same, he would contend that the suit is an abuse of process of law. 6. In view of the same, he would contend that the suit is an abuse of process of law. 6. It is also his further contention that the plaintiff himself has filed earlier suit in O.S.No.4956 of 2007, which he withdrew later and subsequently, he filed the present suit. His further contention that the plaintiff has set up some other person to file one more suit in O.S.No.5046 of 2007 and obtained an order of status quo and therefore according to him, by way of filing various suits, there is abuse of process made by the plaintiff and other persons who are connected with him. 7. On the other hand, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that in fact the application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC for leave to file the suit in the City Civil Court, Chennai and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the City Civil Court informed that the petitioners herein have received notice and they have taken time for filing counter. As far as plaintiff is concerned, learned Senior counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court about paragraph 2 of the plaint and submit that when once the second defendant has got overall responsibility, being the appellate authority to control all the synods which is situated in Chennai, the City Civil Court is having jurisdiction to decide the issues at the time of hearing the suit on merit. 8. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of the Court about the Constitution of the Church of South India, which contemplates that any person who is affected by any decision of any Diocese, has right to move the local court as against the said decision and appeal is available on the grounds of fact or law and therefore, the petitioners/CSI, who are the members of Synod can always avail the provisions of the Constitution of the Church of South India, as stated above. 9. Mr.Nixon, learned counsel for the third respondent/second defendant in the suit who has taken notice, would submit that he is adopting the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent regarding the filing of the petition under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, which is pending in the City Civil Court, Chennai. 9. Mr.Nixon, learned counsel for the third respondent/second defendant in the suit who has taken notice, would submit that he is adopting the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent regarding the filing of the petition under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, which is pending in the City Civil Court, Chennai. His contention is that as a Moderator, the second defendant is controlling all the Dioceses within the State. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. On the face of it, I do not see any reason to interfere with the suit pending in the Courts below at this stage. The points raised by Mr.C.Ravichandran are all defences available in the suit. As it is correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, when once the trial Court has granted an order of injunction as early as on 9. 2007, it is not known as to how the revision petitioners have not taken any steps to file an application to vacate the order of injunction. When such an effective remedy is available, it is not known as to why they have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for striking off the plaint on the grounds which are stated above. 12. That apart, as far as leave to file the suit is concerned, such an application has been filed before City Civil Court, Chennai and it is always open to the revision petitioners to raise their contention that leave should not be granted by the City Civil Court, Chennai and the City Civil Court, Chennai is entitled to consider the same. 13. Regarding the jurisdictional issue, prima facie I am satisfied that the second defendant is situated at Chennai and on the basis of which it could be seen that the City Civil Court at Chennai has jurisdiction to decide the suit. In view of the said fact, I do not see any reason to interfere at this stage. 13. Regarding the jurisdictional issue, prima facie I am satisfied that the second defendant is situated at Chennai and on the basis of which it could be seen that the City Civil Court at Chennai has jurisdiction to decide the suit. In view of the said fact, I do not see any reason to interfere at this stage. Further, for the purpose of striking off the plaint, Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC contemplates three instances, which read as follows: Striking out pleadings- "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading- .(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or .(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or .(c) which is otherwise an abuse of process of the Court." 14. Even though it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that filing of many petitions would be taken as vexatious in nature, I am not agreeing with this contention. It is yet to be decided whether the suit is vexatious or not. These things cannot be decided at this stage. 15. As far as abuse of process of law is concerned, I do not see any reason to interfere on that ground also. 16. In view of the foregoing, leaving it open to the petitioners to file necessary application for vacating the order of injunction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The trial Judge, XII City Civil Court, Chennai is directed to take up the application for injunction and all other applications filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and decide all the applications within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report the same to this Court. It is made clear that the trial Court shall decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court, while disposing of the revision. Consequently, CMP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are also dismissed. No costs.