Judgment : 1. Challenging the election to the Executive Committee Members for Tirunelveli Diocese, the Plaintiff-Isaac, who claims to be a Member of Kulavanigarpuram CSI Church forming part of Tirunelveli Diocese has filed the Suit. The Plaintiff seeks for a declaration that the election held on 012. 2007 for the post of Executive Committee Members for Tirunelveli Diocese is null and void and for mandatory injunction to direct the First Defendant-Moderator to appoint some other independent persons in the place of the Second Defendant-Bishop as Election Officer and to direct the First Defendant to conduct a fresh election for the post of Executive Members for Tirunelveli Diocese. This Application has been filed to grant "Leave to Sue" to institute the above Suit against the Respondents/ Defendants 2 to 5 before this Court. 2. The Applicant/Plaintiff is stated to be a Member of Kulavanigarpuram CSI Church and Pastorate of Tirunelvi CSI Diocese. The case of the Applicant is that himself and Dr. Chelliah were elected as Diocese Council Member and in Tirunelveli Diocese in 1992 Pastorate elections were held and CC Members were elected. The next stage of election is for the post of Executive Committee Members. According to the Applicant, there are 125 DC and CC Members from 17 Pastorates of Tirunelveli Diocese, are eligible to vote. The Applicant/Plaintiff has alleged that he is representing 125 elected Members of 17 Pastorates of Tirunelveli Diocese and all these Members were prevented from voting and contesting the Executive Committee Election. The Applicant has alleged that the election was postponed on 012. 2007. According to the Applicant, Fifth Respondent-Election Officer informed him by the letter dated 012. 2007 that as per the Orders of Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S. No.194 of 2007, the Applicant and others (125 elected Members) would not be permitted to vote. The Applicant has further alleged that one John had filed the Suit only at the behest of Second Respondent-Bishop. Certain allegations are levelled against the Second Respondent-Bishop and that the Rules of the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese are violated and therefore, the Applicant/Plaintiff has filed the Suit. 3. The Applicant has further alleged that one John had filed the Suit only at the behest of Second Respondent-Bishop. Certain allegations are levelled against the Second Respondent-Bishop and that the Rules of the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese are violated and therefore, the Applicant/Plaintiff has filed the Suit. 3. According to the Applicant/Plaintiff, the First Respondent is the Moderator of Church of South India (CSI) and Synod has the control over all CSI Churches and the Office of the Moderator being located at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai, this Court will have the jurisdiction. 4. Since, the dispute pertains to Tirunelveli Diocese election, even in the Application for leave to sue Notice was ordered to the Respondents. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Ms. Hema Sampath for the Applicant, the learned counsel for the First Respondent Mr. Adrian D. Rozario and the learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 Mr. T.R.K. Kumarasingh. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant Ms. Hema Sampath laying emphasis upon Chapter XI, Rule 4 of the Constitution of CSI, has submitted that whenever Diocese or Synod are made Parties, Suit shall be instituted in such Courts within whose Territorial Jurisdiction the Office of Synod at that time situated. The learned Senior Counsel mainly urged that the Synod is the Supreme Body and the First Respondent being the Head of the Synod having superintendence over the Diocese situated at Chennai, Chennai Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. The learned Senior Counsel has further urged that when allegations are levelled against the Second Respondent-Bishop, only the Synod has to intervene and pass appropriate directions and therefore, the Suit has been rightly filed in Chennai where the Synod is located. 7. Drawing the attention of the Court to Chapter IX, Rule 15, the learned counsel for the First Respondent Mr. Adrian D. Rozario, has submitted that the Synod shall deal only with matters of common interest to the whole CSI and those which affect the relationship of the Dioceses to one another and the internal affairs of each Diocese are left to the Diocesan Councils to deal with the matter and that the First Respondent is an unnecessary Party to the Suit. Laying emphasis upon the Rules in Chapter VIII and Chapter IX of the Constitution of CSI the learned counsel has further submitted that the election dispute is the internal affairs of Tirunelveli Diocese and in such internal affairs the First Respondent-Moderator has no role to play and therefore, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. 8. Submitting that the dispute pertains to Tirunelveli Diocese Election and that the entire Electorate is situated at Tirunelveli and that the election notification had been published only at Tirunelveli, the learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 Mr. T.R.K. Kumara Singh has submitted that the High Court Original Side will have no Territorial Jurisdiction. It was further submitted that since the entire cause of action had arisen within Tirunelveli District the Suit cannot be entertained and no leave could be granted. 9. Before adverting to the points raised, we may usefully refer to the Constitution of CSI Dioceses, Diocesan Council and Synod. CSI consist of three units: .(i) Local Congregations is the basic unit of CSI. .(ii) A Pastorate is an organized congregation or a group of congregations recognized as such by the Diocesan Council, under the superintendence of a Presbyter appointed by the Diocese. (iii) Diocese — CSI consists of Dioceses with specified geographical boundaries and all the Pastorates of a particular geographical area with all institutions administered by the Church within that area form a Diocese. (iv) Synod is the highest representative body of the CSI, its supreme governing and legislative body and the visible symbol of its unity. 10. Diocesan Council – Chapter VIII of CSI Rules: .(i) The Church of South India consists of dioceses with specified geographical boundaries. All the Pastorates of a particular geographical area with all institutions administered by the Church within that area form a diocese. Each diocese is under the charge of a Bishop and is administered through a Diocesan Council within the framework of the Constitution of Church of South India. The Synod shall determine the boundaries of the dioceses. Every Diocesan Council shall state in its own constitution the necessary qualifications, and method of election or nomination of the lay representatives in it. .(ii) The Bishop of the diocese shall be the ex-officio president of the Diocesan Council. The Synod shall determine the boundaries of the dioceses. Every Diocesan Council shall state in its own constitution the necessary qualifications, and method of election or nomination of the lay representatives in it. .(ii) The Bishop of the diocese shall be the ex-officio president of the Diocesan Council. Every Diocesan Council has the power to make rules and pass resolutions and take executive action for the general management and good Government of the Church in the diocese, subject to the provisions of the Constitution of CSI and in the particular to those concerning the Synod of the Church. The Council has the right to an effective voice in the appointment of its Bishop, and the right to make regulations with regard to the acceptance of candidates for ordination to the Ministry, with regard to pastorates, and with regard to the discipline of the Church, subject to the provisions of this Constitution on these topics. It has the duty of fostering the development of the evangelistic, pastoral, educational and other work of the Church in the diocese. (iii) Every Diocesan Council shall appoint an Executive Committee and may appoint other Committees/Boards, and may delegate to them such of its functions and duties as it may think fit. 11. (i) The Synod — Chapter IX of CSI Rules : The Synod is the highest representative body of the Church of South India, its supreme governing and legislative body and the visible symbol of its unity. (ii) Powers of the Synod : The Synod is the supreme governing and legislative body of the Church of South India, and the final authority in all matters pertaining to the Church. It has power to make rules and pass resolutions and take executive action as may be necessary from time to time for the general management and good government of the Church and of the property and affairs thereof. As per Chapter IX, Rule 15, the Synod shall deal with matters of common interest to the whole Church of South India, and with those which affect the relation of the Dioceses to one another and to the rest of the universal Church, and shall leave the Diocesan Councils to deal with the internal affairs of each diocese. 12. As noted earlier, Office of Synod/Secretariat is situated at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai. 12. As noted earlier, Office of Synod/Secretariat is situated at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai. The Moderator shall be the Presiding Officer of the Synod and Chairman of its Executive Committee. The Moderator shall be the financial representative of the Church during his term of office in all business and other Churches or organizations. .13. Challenging the election of Tirunelveli Diocese and alleging that the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese is violated, the Applicant has filed the Suit in this Court on the ground that the First Respondent-Moderator is at Chennai. For invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant laid emphasis upon Chapter XI, Rule 4 of CSI Constitution, which reads as under: ."Subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all members of the Church also agree that whenever any legal proceedings are to be instituted and in which the Officers of the Diocese or Synod are made parties, such Suit shall be instituted only in such Courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Diocese or of the Synod and/or its Secretariat is at that time situated". .14. By a careful reading of CSI Rules, it is abundantly clear that Synod, which is the highest representative body of CSI shall deal with matters of common interest and those which affect the relationship of the Dioceses to one another and shall leave the Diocesan Council to deal with the internal affairs of each Dioceses. The relevant provision is Chapter IX, Rule 15, which reads as under: ."The Synod shall deal with matters of common interest to the whole Church of South India, and with those which affect the relation of the dioceses to one another and to the rest of the universal Church, and shall leave the Diocesan Councils to deal with the internal affairs of each Diocese. " 15. Synod being the highest representative body of the CSI, its supreme governing and legislative body deals only with the common interest. As is seen from Chapter IX, Rule 17, the Synod has power to add or otherwise alter the Constitution of CSI. It is the final Authority in all questions of the interpretation of the Constitution of CSI. " 15. Synod being the highest representative body of the CSI, its supreme governing and legislative body deals only with the common interest. As is seen from Chapter IX, Rule 17, the Synod has power to add or otherwise alter the Constitution of CSI. It is the final Authority in all questions of the interpretation of the Constitution of CSI. Chapter VIII-Diocesan Councils and the Rules thereon would also affirm that Synod would deal with the matters of common interest to the Church and the Diocesan Council is to deal with the matters concerning the particular Diocese. 16. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 7, the normal duty of a Diocesan Council is to deal with matters, which concern only its own Diocese, leaving it to the Synod to deal with matters of common interest to the whole Church. The Diocesan Council of each Dioceses shall make its own Rules and shall state in its own Constitution method of election and deal with all matters concerning the internal administration of representative Dioceses. 17. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 3, every Diocesan Council shall state in its own constitution the necessary qualifications, and method of election or nomination of the lay representatives in it provided that these qualifications shall be in conformity with Chapter IV, Rule 4. As per Rule 5, every Diocesan Council has the power to make Rules and pass resolutions and take executive action for the general management and good Government of the Church in the diocese, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and in particular to those concerning the Synod of the Church. 18. By a careful reading of the Rules under Chapter VIII, it is seen that Diocesan Council has power to frame, amend or alter its own Constitution and the Diocesan Council is to deal with matters, which concern its own Diocese. Each Diocese would exercise the powers and function of administration within its Territory on the basis of its own Constitution. To put it shortly, Tirunelveli Diocese would be governed by its extant Rules — Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. The Diocese is governed by its own Rules and its own Constitution. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 3, Diocesan Council shall state in its own Constitution the necessary qualification and method of election. To put it shortly, Tirunelveli Diocese would be governed by its extant Rules — Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. The Diocese is governed by its own Rules and its own Constitution. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 3, Diocesan Council shall state in its own Constitution the necessary qualification and method of election. Chapter VIII, Rule 3 reads as under: "Every Diocesan Council shall state in its own constitution the necessary qualifications, and method of election or nomination of the lay representatives in it provided that these qualifications shall be in conformity with Chapter IV, Rule 4. " It is thus evident that election to Tirunelveli Diocese and method of election or nomination of the lay representatives and election to the Executive Committee shall be in accordance with Tirunelveli CSI Diocese Rules. In conducting of the election to Tirunelveli Diocese Synod has no role to play. 19. The dispute pertains to Tirunelveli Diocese and its Executive Committee. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 10 every Diocesan Council shall appoint an Executive Committee and may appoint other Committees/Boards and delegate to them such of its functions and duties. That election to Tirunelveli Diocese and Executive Committee is governed by the CSI Rules. The Electorate is also at Tirunelveli. The election notification was issued at Tirunelveli. The Applicant has alleged violation of the Rules of the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. The entire cause of action has arisen only at Tirunelveli and no part of cause of action has arisen at Chennai. 20. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the First Respondent-Moderator has nothing to do with Tirunelveli Diocese election. Synod, which deals with the common interest of the Church, hardly has any role to play in Tirunelveli Dioceses Council election. While so, the First Respondent is not at all a necessary party to this Suit. Even, if certain allegations are levelled against the Bishop, that is not the ground for the Moderator to interfere in the internal administration of Tirunelveli Diocese. 21. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has urged that the Synod being the highest representative body of CSI only the First Respondent could issue directions as he is in over all control of the Church. It was further argued that certain allegations are levelled against the Second Respondent-Bishop and only the Moderator has to decide the matter. 21. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has urged that the Synod being the highest representative body of CSI only the First Respondent could issue directions as he is in over all control of the Church. It was further argued that certain allegations are levelled against the Second Respondent-Bishop and only the Moderator has to decide the matter. Drawing the attention of the Court to Chapter XI, Rules 25 to 28, the learned Senior Counsel Ms. Hema Sampath has submitted that when a charge is brought against a Bishop, only the Court of Synod shall try the charges against the Bishop. Chapter XI, Rules 25 to 28 deal with the procedure for trial of Bishops when specific charges are levelled against the Bishop. Rules 25 to 28 lay down the procedure for trial of Bishop. In this case Applicant complains of certain violations of election Rules and are alleged at the behest of the Bishop. It cannot be equated to charge brought against a Bishop warranting trial of Bishop under Rules 25 to 28. 22. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that in earlier occasions in Transfer Petition (C) Nos.775-776 of 1996 the Supreme Court has directed transfer of O.S. No.150/96, pending in the City Civil Court, Secunderabad (A.P.) to the City Civil Court, Madras, to be tried along with the other Suit pending on its file and submitted that the situs of Synod is the vital factor while determining the Territorial Jurisdiction. The facts and circumstances of the said Transfer Petition (C) Nos.775-776 of 1996 before the Supreme Court and the nature of dispute involved is not known. Under such circumstances, the said decision cannot be taken as a precedent to conclude that the Suit could be maintained in Chennai. 23. In Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & Ors., 2001 (2) SCC 294 , the Apex Court emphasized that it was the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action which was the necessary constituted of "cause of action" and determined the place where the "cause of action" arise. The following observations of the Supreme Court are apposite : "The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially-settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. The following observations of the Supreme Court are apposite : "The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially-settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the Suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the Judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action". It has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises." 24. In my considered view, mere existence of the Synod at Chennai would not confer jurisdiction upon the original side of this Court. "Cause of action" means every fact which becomes necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right. "Every fact" does not mean every piece of evidence. It means substantial facts and circumstances forming infringement of the right or immediate occasion for the action. As noted earlier, the entire cause of action has arisen only in Tirunelveli District. This Court will not assume jurisdiction merely because the Synod is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered view, entire cause of action has arisen in Tirunelveli District and the leave to sue cannot be granted. This Application is dismissed.