Judgment : 1. These applications are filed seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner interfering with the internal administration and management of the affairs of the first applicant Diocese and also from in any way preventing the applicants from exercising their right to take disciplinary action as contemplated under the Constitution of the Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese pending disposal of the suit. 2. The first applicant is the Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese represented by its Treasurer and the second applicant is the Bishop of Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese. They have contended in their applications that during the course of their business and regular transaction, it came to light that some of the office bearers of the first applicant Diocese misappropriated, embezzled and mishandled the funds of the first applicant Diocese. Criminal Complaints were filed by some of the office bearers and the same are pending investigation on the file of the District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi. The High Power Commission consisting of ten member of the Diocese unanimously found in its report dated 110. 2007 that some members have embezzled the funds of the first applicant causing monetary loss to it. Directing the erring members to make good the loss and deficiency made by them to the first applicant Diocese, appropriate proceedings also have been initiated against them in accordance with law. While being so, the respondents, in order to aid those erring members, called upon the applicants to submit all those accounts to them for their scrutiny and threatened them not to take any action as against the erring members. Therefore, the applicants have sought for the interim relief as stated supra. 3. The respondents have filed common counter contending that the suit filed by the unregistered body without obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the defendant, another unregistered body is not maintainable. Therefore, no interim order can be passed in a suit which is not instituted properly before this court. The Bishop of the Diocese shall have a general oversight of the financial administration of the Diocese, but, shall not exercise any direct control over the finances. The respondents have received so many complaints with regard to the administration of the Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese. The respondents have nothing to do with the pending case under investigation before the police authorities. The Bishop of the Diocese shall have a general oversight of the financial administration of the Diocese, but, shall not exercise any direct control over the finances. The respondents have received so many complaints with regard to the administration of the Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese. The respondents have nothing to do with the pending case under investigation before the police authorities. But, the fact that so many criminal complaints are pending before various authorities will go to show that there is no peace in the Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese under the shepherd of Bishop. Therefore, the respondents have no other option except to ask the Bishop according to the constitution of Church of South India to produce the records. It is the duty of the Bishop to follow the spirit of the constitution. The Bishop and the Treasurer of the first applicant have acted as Chairman and Member of the High Power Commission constituted by him. The applicants have approached the court with uncleaned hands casting aspersion on the second respondent who is the Moderator of the Church of South India. The accounts pertaining to the period 2006-2007 were not approved by the Diocese even though it was audited by a Chartered Accountant. But without approving the accounts, the applicants have submitted the accounts of the first respondent with an ulterior motive, knowing full well that the audited statements of accounts from all the Dioceses coming under the Church of South India will have to be consolidated and submitted to the Finance Department of the Government. The letter emanated from the respondents simply directs the first applicant to submit the accounts and not to take hasty steps till such time the respondents, being the officers of the Synod unravelled the truth in the disputes between the members to do justice to them. The letter emanated from the respondents was misinterpreted to suit the convenience of the applicants. When the letter is not aimed at any individual, the applicants allege that the respondents had written to them advising not to take any legal action against those individuals who were accused of misappropriation. Therefore, for all these reasons, the respondents would submit that the applications deserve dismissal. 4. When the letter is not aimed at any individual, the applicants allege that the respondents had written to them advising not to take any legal action against those individuals who were accused of misappropriation. Therefore, for all these reasons, the respondents would submit that the applications deserve dismissal. 4. The learned counsel Mr.S.Subbiah appearing for the applicants would submit that the respondents cannot call for the accounts at a crucial stage where the applicants have started taking appropriate proceedings as against the erring officials who committed misappropriation of the funds of the first applicant. In order to protect the wrong doers, the applicants have been directed to produce the accounts. The respondents cannot intrude into the internal affairs of the first applicant. Taking appropriate proceedings to discipline the members of the first applicant fall within the exclusive domain of internal administration and the same does not fall under the supervisory jurisdiction of the respondents. Therefore, he would submit that the applicants are entitled to the relief as sought for. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam appearing for the respondents would submit that the suit between the first applicant and the first respondent being unregistered Bodies is not maintainable without getting permission from the court invoking the provision under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the suit itself is not maintainable, no interim relief can be granted in the applications in favour of the applicants. The fact remains that many criminal complaints as against the members of the first applicant has been pending before the police authorities for investigation. Therefore, the first respondent, being an Apex Body, has got the authority to intervene in the interest of the applicant Diocese to set right the wrong. The applicants cannot disobey the directions of the first respondent to submit the accounts as per the constitution of Church of South India, Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese. The applicants cannot have any grievance on the advice rendered by the first respondent not to take hasty action to sharpen the disputes amongst the members of the first applicant. Therefore, he would submit that the applications are liable to be dismissed. 6. Coming to the legal submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, the court finds that Order 1 Rule 8 mandates obtention of permission to sue on behalf of a Body of persons. Therefore, he would submit that the applications are liable to be dismissed. 6. Coming to the legal submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, the court finds that Order 1 Rule 8 mandates obtention of permission to sue on behalf of a Body of persons. Nowhere the applicants have stated that the first applicant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Anyway, such a contention raised by the respondents will be decided in the proper application filed by the respondents. But, even if the mandatory permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been obtained by the plaintiffs, leave can very well be obtained even during the pendency of the suit. Further, in a suit laid in a representative character, leave can be had under the aforesaid rule even at the stage of appeal. Of course, all the formalities prescribed in the aforesaid rule should be strictly observed by the plaintiffs. Just because the applicants have not sought permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicants cannot be shown the doors at a stage where they have sought for interim relief from this court. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that the applications are not sustainable in view of the fact that the suit was not properly filed stands rejected. 7. The grievance of the applicants is that the first respondent has called for the books of accounts for the financial year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for scrutiny at a crucial stage where appropriate proceedings have been initiated for misappropriation as against the members of the first applicant. The further grievance is that under the guise of advice, the second respondent has threatened the first applicant not to take action in matters related to the financial accounts of the Diocese. .8. As per Rule 10 in Chapter 5 of the Constitution of Church of South India, Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese, the Bishop of the Diocese shall have a general oversight of the financial administration of the Diocese, but, shall not exercise any direct control over the finances. .8. As per Rule 10 in Chapter 5 of the Constitution of Church of South India, Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese, the Bishop of the Diocese shall have a general oversight of the financial administration of the Diocese, but, shall not exercise any direct control over the finances. As per Rule 15 of Chapter 9 of the Constitution of Church of South India, Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese, the Synod will deal with the matters of common interest concerning the whole of South India and matters affecting the relation of the Diocese inter se and shall leave the Diocesan Councils to deal with the internal affairs of each Diocese. The Synod Executive Committee/Working Committee/Officers shall have the power to call for particulars relating to the administration and financial management of a diocese from the Bishop whenever required. 9. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid two rules would indicate unambiguously that the administration of the internal affairs of the first applicant vests with the first applicant. But, in the interest of the Diocese, the Synod has the authority to direct the first applicant to submit certain particulars in connection with its administration and financial management. Though the first applicant has general authority as regards the financial administration, the direct control over the finance is vested with the Synod, the first respondent herein. In view of the above demarcation of the powers, the first applicant cannot resist the first respondent from calling for particulars relating to the administration and financial management of the Diocese. But, the first respondent is not supposed to interfere with the internal administration and management of the affairs of the first applicant. In the overall interest of the Diocese under the control of the Synod, the Synod can direct the Diocese to send any particulars affecting the administration and financial management of the Diocese. The respondents have shown before this court referring to the aforesaid provision under Constitution of Church of South India, Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese that they have every authority to call for the books of accounts for the financial year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for their scrutiny. .10. The documents filed before this court would show that many criminal complaints have emanated from the members of the first applicant and the same are pending investigation before the police sleuth at Thoothukudi. .10. The documents filed before this court would show that many criminal complaints have emanated from the members of the first applicant and the same are pending investigation before the police sleuth at Thoothukudi. The High Power Committee, which, of course, spearheaded by the second applicant has returned a finding that there has been misappropriation of the funds of the first applicant. The High Power Committee is a fact finding Committee. Therefore, participation of the Bishop and the Treasurer of the first applicant in the High Power Committee does not nullify the finding of the members of the Committee that there has been misappropriation of the funds of the first applicant. The above facts and circumstances would go to show that everything is not well with the general administration of the first applicant. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for the Synod to intervene to safeguard the reputation of the first applicant. But, definitely, the respondents cannot put a spoke in the internal disciplinary proceedings initiated by the first applicant as against its members on the basis of the serious allegation of misappropriation of its funds. 11. The applicants cannot be restrained by the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings against the erring members till the accounts are scrutinised by the Synod. Though there is nothing wrong in calling for the books of accounts for the financial year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 from the first applicant for scrutiny, directing the first applicant not to proceed further relating to the financial accounts of the Diocese until the accounts submitted by the first applicant are scrutinized by the Synod is prima facie found to be an interference with the internal affairs of the applicants. The applicants have the authority to take action independently without the interference of the respondents against the erring officials in the interest of their internal administration. 12. The applicants have made out a prima facie case in their applications seeking interim relief’s. If they are restrained from initiating appropriate proceedings as against the erring officials, able and honest administration of the affairs of the first applicant will be under serious threat. Therefore, the balance of convenience is found only in favour of the applicant. Much hardship will be caused to the applicants if they fail to discipline their members in the larger interest of the Diocese. 13. Therefore, the relief’s as prayed for in these applications are granted. Therefore, the balance of convenience is found only in favour of the applicant. Much hardship will be caused to the applicants if they fail to discipline their members in the larger interest of the Diocese. 13. Therefore, the relief’s as prayed for in these applications are granted. But, at the same time, it is made clear that the second respondent is empowered to direct the first applicant to submit the books of accounts for the financial year 2005-2006 and 20062007 for scrutiny. The applications stand allowed.