Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. This question that arises for consideration in this un-numbered Civil Revision Petition is: Whether an order made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. can be question in a Civil Revision Petition, on the ground that the trial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consider the application? 2. The whole controversy in this case arose when the Bishop of Kanyakumari Diocese, third respondent herein, vide Ref.B/0569/2012, dated 03.05.2012, suspended respondents 1 and 2 from the membership in Karungal Church for a period of six years on the ground of indiscipline. 3. In this context, it is to be stated that the Constitution of the Church of South India, 2003, is the governing law in matters of discipline of members of the Church. Chapter V thereof deals with the Ministry of the Church, which contemplates the Ordained Ministry, inter alia, Providing for the functions and responsibilities of Bishops and Administration of Vacant Dioceses; Pastoral Oversight; Leadership in Evangelization; Teaching; Worship; Ordination; Authorisation and the Stationing of Ministers. Clause 7 of Chapter V deals with Discipline, as per which the Bishop of the diocese along shall have authority in disciplinary cases to pronounce sentences of suspension, from Holy Communion or of excommunication, and to restore those that are penitent to the fellowship of the Church. But, he may only exercise this authority in accordance with the rules for the Discipline of the Church as contained in Chapter XI of the Constitution and such regulations as may under the said Constitution be laid down by the Synod or the Diocesan Council, Besides, Discipline of Ministers, Diocesan Council, Finance, The Synod, Duration of Appointment, Voluntary Appointment, Compulsory Resignation etc. are also contained in the Chapter. 4. The Organisation of C.S.I. has been enumerated in Chapter VII. Local Congregations, Pastorates and Pastorate Committees are also described under it. Chapter VIII deals with Diocesan Councils. Chapter IX deals with Synod, wherein it is provided that 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. This Chapter also enumerates the Members, Officers, powers and functions of the Synod. Chapter VIII deals with Diocesan Councils. Chapter IX deals with Synod, wherein it is provided that 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. This Chapter also enumerates the Members, Officers, powers and functions of the Synod. The relevance of this Chapter has to be seen from various provisions under Chapter XI, which specifically deals with discipline of the Church and settlement of disputes, which, discipline of the Church and the jurisdiction vested in it with various bodies, namely, The Local Court, The Court of the Diocesan Council and the Court of the Synod in Appeal. 5. Clauses 8 of Chapter XI provides that the Bishop of the Diocese may, where necessary, appoint a local Court or Panchayat for the administration of discipline of members of the Church and may refer cases to it. Clause 9 is an appeal provision, which states that an appeal on grounds of fact or law shall lie from every judgment of a local court to the Court of the Diocesan Council. Such appeal may be preferred by either of the parties within fourteen days of the pronouncement of the judgment. The Bishop, either on his own accord or at the instance of the presbyter in charge of the local church, may call for the records of any case an place them before the court of the Diocesan Council for reconsideration and disposal. Clause 12 contemplates the Court of the Diocesan Council, which, inter alia, provided that the Court of the Diocesan Council shall consist of the Bishop of the Diocese, or a presbyter commissioned by him, together with two presbyters and two lay persons chosen by the Bishop out of a panel appointed by the Diocesan Council. 6. The Synod, the Court of Appeal, is the ultimate Appellate Court, As per Clause 23 of Chapter XI, when the Court of the Synod sits to hear an appeal from a Court of a Diocesan Council, it shall consist of the Moderator as President, and two Bishop, two Presbyters, and two laymen, selected by the Moderator out of panels which shall be appointed by the Synod at each ordinary meeting thereof. 7. 7. From the above provisions, it is clear that hierarchy of the administration of the discipline of the Church emanates from the Local Court to the Court of the Diocesan Council and thereafter to the Court of the Synod. 8. The Church of South India is constituted with a territorial jurisdiction of Madras, Madura, Malabar, Jaffna, 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 and, thereafter, all of them merged with South India. The office of the Synod and its Secretariat is situated at Chennai. Thus, Synod is having power to deal with the appeals, which are arising out of the Diocesan Councils concerned. 9. At this point, what is to be examined is, the order of suspension passed by the Bishop of Kanyakumari Diocese, dated 03.05.2012, suspending the petitioners from the membership in Karungal Church for a period of six years with immediate effect, since they he continued to be indisciplined, which shall be initiated by the Bishop of the Diocese alone under Clause 7 of Chapter V, and which power has to be exercised in the manner provided under Chapter XI of the Constitution. 10. As already stated above, Clause 8 of Chapter XI empowers the Bishop of the Diocese to appoint a local Court of Panchayat, if necessary, for administration of discipline of members of the Church and to refer cases to it. Thereafter, under Clause 9, an appeal lies to the Court of the Diocesan Council. 11. In the instant case, the Local Court is at Kanyakumari and the Court of the Diocesan Council is also at Kanyakumari, which are well within the jurisdiction of Kanyakumari District and, therefore, the issue in question is a matter arising within the jurisdiction of Kanyakumari District. 12. It is not in dispute that the order of suspension has been made by the Bishop of Kanyakumari Diocese, but it not referred to any local Court. Only on reference to the Local Court and an order being passed thereon, the right of appeal lies to the Court of the Diocesan Council and, only in pursuance thereto, if any judgment it made by the Diocesan Council, the same shall be taken on appeal before the Synod. 13. Only on reference to the Local Court and an order being passed thereon, the right of appeal lies to the Court of the Diocesan Council and, only in pursuance thereto, if any judgment it made by the Diocesan Council, the same shall be taken on appeal before the Synod. 13. After the Bishop passed the order of suspension of the respondents I and2/plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents, without getting an order from the Local Court or the Court of the Diocesan Council, claimed that they had preferred an appeal to the Synod at Chennai, to usurp the jurisdiction of the Court at Chennai, thereby creating a cause of action to file a suit for a decree of direction to the petitioners herein/defendant 1 and 2 viz., Moderator, CSI Synod and General Secretary, CSI Synod , whose seats are at Chennai, to hear and dispose of the alleged appeal, dated 11.06.2012, and also to suspend the resolution passed by the Church Board, dated 19.04.2012, suspending them from the membership of Karungal Church, which was communicated to them by respondent/defendants 3 and 4, pending disposal of the appeal, and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, their men, agent and servant or anybody claimed through them from preventing the plaintiff from functioning as member and deacon for the CSI Karungal Church in the election, dated 04.03.2012. From this, it is conspicuous that a direction has been sought to the Moderator and the General Secretary of CSI Synod, to hear and dispose of the alleged appeal, dated 11.06.2012. 14. The Constitution of the Church of South India contemplates as to what should be the discipline and how it is to be regulated. The discipline of the Church and settlement of disputes are clearly enumerated in Chapter XI. In this regard, firstly, the orders of Bishop shall go to a local Court and then an appeal shall lie to the Court of the Diocesan Council. When that being the position, this Court is at a loss to understand as to why the order of the Bishop was not referred to a local Court or Panchayat for administration of discipline of members of the Church and, thereafter, to avail the appeal remedy before the Court of the Diocesan Council. When that being the position, this Court is at a loss to understand as to why the order of the Bishop was not referred to a local Court or Panchayat for administration of discipline of members of the Church and, thereafter, to avail the appeal remedy before the Court of the Diocesan Council. Also, when such a jurisdictional demarcation has been made as to where the matter has to be dealt with and what should be the mode of adjudication of the matter and settlement of dispute and, thereafter, what shall be the remedy available to the aggrieved parties, it is not known as to why the respondents I and 2/plaintiffs have straight-a-way approached the Moderator and the General Secretary of the Synod, which is located in Chennai. This give a clear impression to this Court that only to create a cause of action and to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Chennai, the respondents have preferred the alleged appeal. 15. In the counter filed before the trial Court the revision petitioners, in paras 5 and 6, have stated as under: “5. All that the plaintiffs have sought for in the present suit is with reference to their alleged appeal petitions dated 11.6.2012 to the Moderator of the CSI Synod, the first defendant in the suit, and myself as the second defendant. Even in the alleged appeals, the plaintiffs have not questioned the validity of their suspensions as being contrary to the Constitutions of the Church of South India (CSI) and the CSI Kanyakumari Diocese. They only allege that the charges leveled against them were totally baseless and make reckless allegations about others without any basis. In particular, they have not alleged that their suspensions are against law and against the principles of natural justice and the like. They have however done so in the plaint as an afterthought and for the purpose of the suit. In any case, the alleged appeals are not provided for anywhere in the said Constitutions for the same to be maintainable. The plaintiffs have also not stated as to under what provisions of the Constitutions they have preferred the alleged appeals. All the more, the plaintiffs cannot file a suit for a direction to dispose off their appeals and for such other reliefs as set out in the plaint. The plaintiffs have also not stated as to under what provisions of the Constitutions they have preferred the alleged appeals. All the more, the plaintiffs cannot file a suit for a direction to dispose off their appeals and for such other reliefs as set out in the plaint. Consequently, the present application is not maintainable and the relief sought for therein has no nexus with the of the subject matter or main relief in the suit as well. With due respect, the injunction prayed for cannot be granted for the same has become infructuous in view of the suspensions having already been given effect to as early as on 3.5.2012. The allegations that the plaintiffs are continuing as members of the Church and are doing their duty a deacon are out and out false and made only for the purpose of the present application.” “6. Even otherwise, it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that they were members of the Karungal Church which come under the CSI Kanyakumari Diocese. And the question of discipline of such members is an internal affair of the said diocese to be dealt with by the Diocesan Council. The CSI Synod has no role to play in such matters as set out in chapter XI, Rule 15 of the CSI Constitution, which reads as follow: 15. The Synod shall deal with matters of common interest to the whole Church of South India, and with those which 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.” 16. Under the circumstances, the trial Court, when the petitioners herein had seriously contested the matter with regard to jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit O.S.No.3651 of 2012, without looking into that aspect, straight-a-way went to hear the interim application I.A.No.8746 of 2012 on merit and allowed the same, granting interim injunction. 17. Now, the Registry has raised a query a to the maintainability of this un-unmbered C.R.P. on the ground that appeal remedy is available under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC against the order under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 18. 17. Now, the Registry has raised a query a to the maintainability of this un-unmbered C.R.P. on the ground that appeal remedy is available under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC against the order under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 18. To examine the above legal position, it is to be stated that, it is true that when an order is made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, an appeal shall lie to the appellate Court by way of a C.M.A. under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. 19. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court in Indiabulls Finance Services Limited v. Jubilee Plots and Housing Private Limited, 2009 (4) CTC 64 =2009-4-L.W. 312, wherein, it has been held as under : “23. It I true that there is a alternative remedy available to the revision petitioners under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also true that in normal circumstance the opposite party should be relegated to the Appellate remedy instead of invoking the constitutional remedy. However in case where there was a genuine doubt with respect to the very maintainability of the suit and there was no attempt on the part of the learned Trial Judge to examine the prima facie case of the matter before granting on order of injunction, there is no point in directing the parties to approach the Appellate remedy.” He has also relied upon another decision of this Court in M. Isaac v. The Church of South India, 2009 (2) CTC631, wherein it has been held as follows : “24…. 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 arises only in Tirunelveli District. This Court will not assume jurisdiction merely because the Synod is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.” 20. “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 arises only in Tirunelveli District. This Court will not assume jurisdiction merely because the Synod is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.” 20. The above propositions have been resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents, stating that the facts and circumstances therein are not factually relevant to the facts of this case. 21. However, the fact that mere presence of Synod at Chennai and taking an appeal straight-a-way to it contrary to Clauses 8 and 9 of Chapter XI of the Constitution of CSI is a matter to be reckoned by the trial Court before deciding the interim application. 22. The revision petitioners, as defendants in the suit, on the point of jurisdiction, have consistently pleaded the paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit in the application, which are very specific that the plaintiffs in the suit have not taken any course a available to them as per the Constitution, but, on the contrary, they have preferred the alleged appeal before the Synod. 23. This Court is totally in dark to know for what reasons the said alleged appeal has been preferred before that Synod, bypassing the jurisdiction of the Local Court and also the Court of the Diocesan Council, in a case where suspension was made by the Bishop. It is clear under Clause 7 of Chapter V that the Bishop of the Diocese alone is empowered to suspend the members and, thereafter, the said order or the dispute shall be settled only by a regulation as prescribed under Chapter XI. Such a course is not adopted by the respondent which has been insistently highlighted by the revision petitioners before the trial Judge to clear that position before arriving at a prima facie case. In spite of said insistence, the trial Court has given deaf ear to the said pleading and decided the interim application, without looking into the jurisdictional issue raised by the revision petitioners. 24. In spite of said insistence, the trial Court has given deaf ear to the said pleading and decided the interim application, without looking into the jurisdictional issue raised by the revision petitioners. 24. In such a situation, though effective appellate remedy is available to the respondents, to go on appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, when a jurisdictional issue is the core of contention and also when there is no cause of action for the respondent 1 and 2 to file the suit in question, namely, O.S.No.3651 of 2012 on the file of XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, it is not proper to direct the parties to go before the appellate forum, which is normally the District Court, by way of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, for resolution of their dispute. 25. The power of superintendence of the High Court over subordinate judiciary is defined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The exercise of said power is necessary, if it is shown that grave injustice has been done to a party and the case is a fit case. The said power can also be invoked for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings, gross violation natural justice by the Courts below. 26. In the case on hand, when there is a glaring error committed by the Court below even without looking into the jurisdictional issue, in spite of a definite plea to that effect, and the said Court is only concerned with the interlocutory application for injunction, the High Court, under Article 227, cannot remain a silent spectator, merely keeping in mind the alternative appellate remedy. However, it is also to be stated that the power under Article 227 has to be exercised only sparingly, particularly, when there is a manifest error committed by the Court below. In other words, in the rarest of rare cases and in a situation where the Court below has committed an error of jurisdiction and considered interlocutory applications for granting injunction, certainly, it is for the superintending Court to interfere in the matter and set the wrong right. 27. In other words, in the rarest of rare cases and in a situation where the Court below has committed an error of jurisdiction and considered interlocutory applications for granting injunction, certainly, it is for the superintending Court to interfere in the matter and set the wrong right. 27. In view of my discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I have no iota of doubt to hold that, though there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners as against the order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, in the instant cast, it is not proper to relegate the parties to such a remedy, as this is a fit case, Where the revision petitioners have shown to this Court that the Court below has committed an error of jurisdiction thereby causing grave injustice to them, to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative, holding that the C.R.P. is maintainable. 28. Registry is directed to number the C.R.P. and post the same for admission before the Court concerned.