Judgment 1. Defendants 1 & 2 are the Revision Petitioners. 2. Respondents 1 & 2 filed the Suit before the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for the following reliefs: “(a) directing the Defendants 1 & 2 to hear and dispose of the Appeal Petition dated 11.6.2012 preferred by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants 1 & 2; (b) to suspend the resolution passed by the Church Board dated 19.4.2012 suspending the Plaintiffs from membership in the Karungal Church which was communicated to the Plaintiffs by the 3rd & 4th Defendants till the disposal of the Appeal Petition presented by the Plaintiffs to the 1st & 2nd Defendants. (c) for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents and servants and anybody claimed through them from preventing Plaintiffs from functioning as member and deacon fro the CSI Karungal Church in the election dated 4.3.2012.” 3. Respondents 1 & 2 also filed application for injunction restraining the Revision Petitioners and others form preventing the Plaintiffs from functioning as member and deacon for the CSI Karungal Church in the election dated 4.3.2012 and after contest, injunction was ordered and aggrieved by the same, this Revision is filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that though a Revision is not maintainable against the order temporary injunction granted under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, having regard to the fact that the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit as the entire cause of action arose at Kanyakumari and the grant of injunction by the Court below is a clear abuse of process of Court. He further submitted that this Court has held in the judgment in M. Isaac, S/o. Muthiah v. The Church of South India, 2009 (2) CTC 631 , that such Suits cannot be filed in the City Civil Court as the City Civil Court has no territorial jurisdiction and the Lordship has considered all the issues and held that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such dispute as no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. He, therefore, submitted that the Court below erred in entertaining the Suit and granted injunction and as a matter of fact, the jurisdiction of the Court was also challenged in that case and the Court below, without properly appreciating the judgment of this Court reported in M. Isaac, S/o. Muthiah v. The Church of South India, 2009 (2) CTC 631 , wrongly differentiated the judgment and granted injunction and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs submitted that the City Civil Court has got jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose at Chennai and admittedly, the Respondents filed Appeal before Defendants 1 & 2 whose office is at Chennai and the first prayer in the Suit is for directing Defendants 1 & 2 viz., Revision Petitioner 1 & 2 to hear and dispose of the Appeal Petition dated 11.6.2012 preferred by the Plaintiffs and therefore, having regard to the relief prayed for and having regard to the fact that the office of Defendants 1 & 2 are situate at Chennai, the City Civil Court has got jurisdiction and that was rightly considered by the Court below. He further submitted that the Court below has rightly distinguished the judgment rendered in M. Isaac, S/o. Muthiah v. The Church of South India, 2009 (2) CTC 631 , and held that the Suit is maintainable in a City Civil Court if the Revision Petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they will have to file only an Appeal against the said order and they cannot maintain a Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submitted that this Court cannot interfere with the order of the Court below at this stage and the Revision petitioners may be directed to file Appeal against the order passed by the Court below. 6. According to me, the Court below has erred in granting the order of injunction and the Court below ought not to have entertained the application for injunction. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs prayed for direction directing Revision Petitioners 1 & 2 to hear and dispose of the Appeal Petition dated 11.6.2012 preferred by the Respondents. It is the case of the Respondents that the City Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the Suit having regard to the above prayer. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs prayed for direction directing Revision Petitioners 1 & 2 to hear and dispose of the Appeal Petition dated 11.6.2012 preferred by the Respondents. It is the case of the Respondents that the City Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the Suit having regard to the above prayer. Admittedly, Revision Petitioners 1 & 2 are not under the control of the Civil Courts and they are also no Quasi-judicial Bodies and therefore, no direction can be given by the Civil Court directing them to dispose of the Appeal. 7. Further, a proper reading of the judgment reported in M. Isaac, S/o, Muthiah v. The Church of Sough India, 2009 (2) CTC 631 , would make it clear that the Courts at Chennai has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the issue as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and by impleading the Revision Petitioners, the jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the City Civil Court. Further, in the judgment in C.R.P.(PD) Nos.3961, 4026, 4027 & 4035 of 2011 in the case of J.M. Richard v. The Church of South India Synod and others, these aspects are fully discussed and the learned Judge held as follows: “Though in normal circumstances, the order of interim injunction cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and should drive the parties to approach the same Court by filing an application for vacating the said order of to file a civil miscellaneous appeal against the said order, in the present case on hand, I am not inclined to do so since, the suit has been filed with ulterior motive in Court of choice knowing fully well that the City Civil Court at Chennai has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. Alternative remedy may be a bar to entertain a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, however, if the order was passed without jurisdiction and the Court in which the suit has been filed has no jurisdiction under law, the interim injunction granted by the said Court without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside.” Hence, the grant of injunction by the Court below is a clear abuse of process of the Court and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and it is set aside. 8. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.