ORDER 1. (i) O.A. No. 103 of 2012 : This application has been filed under Order 14 Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules read with Order 39 and Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of interim injunction, restraining 4th respondent from enforcing the letter dated 12.1.2011 written by the 6th respondent asking the applicant to continue on sabbatical leave pending disposal of the suit. (ii) O.A. No. 104 of 2012 : This application has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant for interim injunction restraining the 4th respondent/Moderator from functioning as Bishop-in- Charge of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese, pending disposal of the suit. (iii) O.A. No. 105 of 2012 : This application has been filed for an order of interim injunction restraining the 13th, 14th and 15th respondents from functioning as administrative committee of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese, pending disposal of the suit. (iv) O.A. No. 106 of 2012: This application has been filed for interim injunction, restraining 12th respondent from functioning as Moderators Commissary of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese, pending disposal of the suit. (v) O.A. No. 107 of 2012: This application has been filed for interim injunction restraining the 4th, 6th, 12th, 13th and 14th respondents or their agents or their servants or their successors-in-office or anybody acting on their behalf from convening the XXXI Session of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council on any date or in any place. (vi) O.A. No. 108 of 2012: This application has been moved for grant of interim injunction restraining all the respondents i.e. respondents 1 to 15 or their agents or their servants or their successors-in-office or any other persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner/Bishop Dorai as Bishop of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese. (vii) O.A. No. 109 of 2012: This application has been filed for grant of interim injunction restraining the 4th respondent / Moderator of Church of South India from enforcing the order of the Synod Court dated 15.12.2011. (viii) O.A. No. 110 of 2012: This application has been filed for interim injunction restraining the 4th respondent from enforcing the order of the 6th respondent dated 9.1.2012 declaring that the petitioner ceases to be the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese and declaring CSI Coimbatore Diocese as a vacant diocese. (viii) O.A. No. 110 of 2012: This application has been filed for interim injunction restraining the 4th respondent from enforcing the order of the 6th respondent dated 9.1.2012 declaring that the petitioner ceases to be the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese and declaring CSI Coimbatore Diocese as a vacant diocese. (ix) O.A. No. 111 of 2012: This application has been filed for grant of interim injunction restraining the 4th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th respondents from evicting the petitioner from CSI Bishop’s Bungalow in No. 257 Race Course Road, Coimbatore, pending disposal of the suit. 2. (ix) O.A. No. 111 of 2012: This application has been filed for grant of interim injunction restraining the 4th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th respondents from evicting the petitioner from CSI Bishop’s Bungalow in No. 257 Race Course Road, Coimbatore, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff / applicant in all these applications has filed a suit praying as under: i) for declaration to declare that resolution No. EC:2010-25-3(b) passed by the 2nd defendant / CSI Synod Executive Committee in its meeting held on 1st and 2.7.2010 appointing the 6th defendant as Bishop-in-charge of CSI Coimbatore Diocese is illegal, null and void; ii) for declaration to declare that resolution No. EC:2010-25-3(c) passed by the 2nd defendant / CSI Synod Executive Committee in its meeting held on 1and 2.7.2010 dissolving the Executive Committee of CSI Coimbatore Diocese is illegal, null and void; iii) for declaration to declare that resolution No. EC:2010-25-3(d) passed by the 2nd defendant / CSI Synod Executive Committee in its meeting held on 1 and 2.7.2010 appointing the 13th defendant administrative committee for CSI Coimbatore Diocese is illegal, null and void; iv) for declaration to declare that the letter dated 12.1.2011 written by the 6th defendant asking the plaintiff to continue on sabbatical leave is illegal, null and void; v) for declaration to declare that the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by the 6th defendant appointing the 12th defendant as Moderator’s Commissary of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese is illegal, null and void; vi) for declaration to declare that 4th, 6th, 12th, 13th and 14th defendants or their agents or their servants or their successors-in-office or anybody acting on their behalf have no power or jurisdiction to convene the XXXI Session of Coimbatore Diocesan Council; vii) for declaration to declare that the verdict of the CSI Synod Court dated 15.12.2011 holding that the plaintiff cannot continue as Diocesan Bishop any longer is illegal, null and void; viii) for declaration to declare that the order of the 6th defendant dated 9.1.2012 declaring that the plaintiff ceases to be the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese and declaring CSI Coimbatore Diocese as a vacant Diocese is illegal, null and void; ix) for permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant / Moderator from functioning as Bishop-in-charge of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese; x) for permanent injunction, restraining 13th, 14th and 15th defendants from functioning as administrative committee of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese; xi) for permanent injunction, restraining 12th defendant from functioning as Moderator’s Commissary of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese; xii) for permanent injunction restraining the 4th, 6th, 12th, 13th and 14th defendants or their agents or their servants or their successors-in-office or anybody acting on their behalf from convening the XXXI Session of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council on any date or in any place; xiii) for permanent injunction, restraining all the defendants i.e. defendants 1 to 15 or their agents or their servants or their successors-in-office or any other persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai as Bishop of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese; xiv) for permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant Moderator of Church of South India from enforcing the order of the Synod Court dated 15.12.2011; xv) for permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant from enforcing the order of the 6th defendant dated 9.1.2012 declaring that the plaintiff ceases to be the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese and declaring CSI Coimbatore Diocese as a vacant Diocese; 3. It is pleaded case of the plaintiff/applicant, that the Church of South India (CSI), the largest Church in India, was formed in September, 1947, by amalgamating all the Protestant churches in South India, such as Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and the South India United Church in the four southern States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. It is a Protestant religious denomination. The headquarters of CSI is situated at Chennai. Out of 22 constituent Dioceses in CSI, Coimbatore Diocese is one of the 22 constituent Dioceses of Church of South India, which has headquarters at Coimbatore and is administering Churches, Hospitals, Educational Institutions etc., in eight revenue districts in Tamil Nadu, i.e., Coimbatore, Salem, Tirupur, Namakkal, Erode, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and The Nilgiris in Tamil Nadu. 4. The CSI is an unregistered society. Similarly, CSI, Coimbatore is also an unregistered society. The applicant / plaintiff has filed the suit on behalf of the members of CSI and CSI Coimbatore Diocese, and sought leave of the Hon’ble Court to file the suit in representatove capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The Church of South India Trust Association was constituted as a legal holding body of the movable and immovable body of the CSI and was registered in September, 1947 under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The properties of the Churches in Union have been transferred to the Church of South India Trust Association, which covers 22 Dioceses and other units under their control spread over the four southern State of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. The apex body of Synod of Church of South India and the constituent bodies are Dioceses. 6. The administrative and hierarchical set up of CSI is as follows: “Apex Body – Church of South India Synod Council (A) Synod (B) Officers of the Synod: (1) Moderator (2) Deputy Moderator (3) General Secretary (4) Treasurer (C) Synod Working Committee (D) Synod Executive Committee Constituent Autonomous Diocese: (A) Diocesan Council (B) Office Bearers: (1) Bishop / President (2) Vice-President (3) Secretary (4) Treasurer (C) Diocesan Executive Committee (D) Diocesan Standing Committees (E) Pastorate – Pastorate Committee” 7. Each Diocese is under the charge of a Bishop and is administered through a Diocesan Council within the framework of the constitution of the CSI. Each Diocese is under the charge of a Bishop and is administered through a Diocesan Council within the framework of the constitution of the CSI. Bishop of the Diocese is the ex-officio President and the Diocesan Council and each Diocese exercises powers and functions of administration within its territory on the basis of its own Diocesan Constitution. The Bishop of the Diocese is the Episcopal head of the Diocese and every Bishop is the ex-officio member of the Synod of the Church and member of CSI Synod Executive Committee. The Bishop is a member of Bishops council. The Bishop of a Diocese remains Bishop of the Diocese until he resigns or accepts the charge of another Diocese or departs permanently from the Diocese or is deprived of his charge by sentence of the Court of the Synod, or adjudged by the Executive Committee of the Synod to be mentally, physically or otherwise incapable of discharging the duties of his office. A Bishop retires on completion of 65 years of age. 8. The plaintiff / applicant was elected and appointed as Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese on 30.7.2000 and since then, is functioning as Bishop of the said Diocese. The Plaitiff/Bishop Dorai is the Episcopal religious head of CSI Coimbatore Diocese, which has more than 100 pastorates, including the newly bifurcated/created pastorates. The plaintiff/ Bishop Dorai is the Corporate Manager of the following educational institutions, owned by the CSI Trust Association and administered by CSI Coimbatore Diocese: 1. Engineering College 2. B.Ed., College of Education 3. Arts Colleges 4. Nursing College 5. Matriculation Schools 6. Higher Secondary Schools 7. High Schools 8. Elementary & Middle Schools 9. In addition to these, plaintiff/Bishop Dorai is the Principal power of attorney for the properties owned by Church of South India Trust Association in CSI Coimbatore Diocese, the property-wise is the richest Diocese in Church of South India. That the election to the post of Moderator and Deputy Moderator of CSI for the biennium 2010-2011 was held in Courtallam in January, 2010. The 6th defendant and 4th defendant contested for the posts. The plaintiff/applicant also contested for the post, but was defeated. 10. It is stated, that because of this respondent nos.4 & 6 developed animosity against the plaintiff/applicant. The 6th defendant and 4th defendant contested for the posts. The plaintiff/applicant also contested for the post, but was defeated. 10. It is stated, that because of this respondent nos.4 & 6 developed animosity against the plaintiff/applicant. One person, who was not a full member, filed a false case against the plaintiff and 30 others in 2009 and similar FIRs were filed in other Districts. It is submitted, that while these cases were pending, the same complainant wrote to 6th defendant to take action against the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai. 11. It is the case of the plaintiff/applicant, that these cases were filed without exhausting remedies in Chapter XI Rule 3 of CSI Constitution, therefore, the complainant lost his right to participate in the governance of the Church at all levels. This opportunity was used by the 4th and 6th defendant to loot the properties and finance of CSI Coimbatore Diocese. The 4th and 6th defendants convened the 3rd defendant/CSI Synod Working Committee on 9.2.2010 and appointed three member Fact Finding Committee without terms of reference and time frame. Three member committee were directed to submit report on 4.3.2010 and in the meantime, the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai informed the 6th defendant that the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai was going on leave for two months from 5.4.2010. 12. It is submitted, that 6th defendant should have allowed the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai to appoint a Bishop’s Commissary for CSI Coimbatore Diocese as per Chapter V Rule 14 of CSI constitution. It is further submitted, that instead of following Chapter V Rule 14, the 6th defendant, vide letter dated 30.3.2010, directed Bishop Paul Vasanthakumar of CSI Trichy-Tanjore Diocese to hold additional charge of Coimbatore Diocese. The plaintiff however extended his leave to 4.7.2010. In view of the information sent by the plaintiff, Bishop Paul Vasanthakumar was directed to continue in-charge of Coimbatore Diocese, while the plaintiff was on leave. 13. That there is no provision to give additional charge of Bishop. The defendants permitted the plaintiff to appoint a Bishop’s commissary for Coimbatore Diocese in consultation with Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee and illegally appointed Rt. Rev. Paul Vasanthakumar as Bishop in-charge of CSI Coimbatore. The 8th defendant convened the Executive Committee of CSI Coimbatore Diocese on 17.4.2010, where objection was raised in the meeting that defendant no.8 could not hold the post of in-charge Bishop of Coimbatore Diocese, therefore, he could not convene the meeting. Rev. Paul Vasanthakumar as Bishop in-charge of CSI Coimbatore. The 8th defendant convened the Executive Committee of CSI Coimbatore Diocese on 17.4.2010, where objection was raised in the meeting that defendant no.8 could not hold the post of in-charge Bishop of Coimbatore Diocese, therefore, he could not convene the meeting. Inspite of majority members being of this view, 8th defendant overruled their objection and conducted the meeting. 14. It is submitted, that before holding of this meeting, the plaintiff in meeting held on 23.1.2010 passed resolution in respect of financial powers of different authorities, which reads as under: 1. Diocesan Treasurer can spend upto Rs. 25,000/- (at a time) 2. Diocesan Office Bearers can spend upto Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. If it exceeds Rs. One Lakh, prior approval of the Executive committee is needed. 15. It is submitted that, 8th defendant misappropriated Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from CSI Ketti Engineering College of CSI Coimbatore Diocese on 22.6.2010. On being questioned, it was informed, that this amount has been paid to Tamil Semmozhi Conference held at Coimbatore, which was factually incorrect. This action was even questioned by the members of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee. This resulted in filing of complaint with Inspector of Police, Ketti Police Station, Nilgiris against 11 persons, including the 6th, 4th, and 8th defendants. A criminal case was registered on intervention of this Court. 16. It is submitted, that in order to cover up the lapses, 4th defendant convened CSI Synod Executive Committee on 2.7.2010 and dissolved Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee and resolved as follows: 1. to request the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai to go on Sabbatical leave; 2. the sixth defendant / Moderator shall function as Bishop in charge of CSI Coimbatore Diocese; 3. the Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee be dissolved; 4. To appoint an Administrative Committee to take charge of the Administration of the Diocese. On expiry of leave, the plaintiff informed the 6th defendant, that he had joined duty as Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese on 5.7.2010 and also informed the 6th defendant, that he had applied for sabbatical leave until submission of report by fact finding committee. 17. The case of the plaintiff is that the 2nd defendant CSI Synod Executive Committee met on 29.11.2010, where the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai was not invited, though he was a permanent member of CSI Synod Executive Committee. 17. The case of the plaintiff is that the 2nd defendant CSI Synod Executive Committee met on 29.11.2010, where the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai was not invited, though he was a permanent member of CSI Synod Executive Committee. The plaintiff/applicant also came to know, that the fact finding committee was dissolved on failure to submit report within the stipulated time. It was on account of dissolving of fact finding committee, that the sabbatical leave of the plaintiff/applicant was cancelled. The plaintiff/applicant joined as Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese and informed about this to 6th defendant immediately. 18. It is submitted that after 42 days, the plaintiff/applicant was informed as under: “The CSI Synod Executive Committee, which met on the 29th & 30.11.2010 has taken some decisions regarding your matter. One of the decisions is to request the Moderator to continue to be in charge Bishop of the Coimbatore Diocese. This arrangement is continuing even now. Subsequently, the Bishops Council which met on the 17.12.2010 at Chennai also discussed your matter, in which you were given chance to explain your position and you have explained for nearly 3 hours. Further, the Bishops Council, which met on the 6.1.2011 at Bangalore has also debated this matter and taken some decision. All these things will be communicated officially to you in due course of time. In the meantime, you are hereby asked to continue to be in the sabbatical leave both in your own interest and in the interest of the Diocese.” 19. The plaintiff/applicant has challenged the meeting of CSI Synod for want of quorum, by pleading that as rules do not prescribe any quorum, which means that all members of the Executive Committee, including the plaintiff was required to be present, therefore, the illegal resolution could not be implemented. The plaintiff/applicant came to know about dissolution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee only from the copy of the letter dated 2.7.2010. 20. The plaintiff/applicant came to know about dissolution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee only from the copy of the letter dated 2.7.2010. 20. It is the case of the plaintiff/applicant, that the 6th defendant with the connivance of the other defendants is preventing the plaintiff/applicant from functioning as Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese by preventing the plaintiff/applicant from appointing a Bishop’s commissary during his leave, by illegally appointing himself as Bishop in-charge of CSI Coimbatore Diocese, by dissolving the elected Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee, by appointing administrative committee and by directing the plaintiff to continue on sabbatical leave, and also by illegally appointing 12th defendant as Moderator’s Commissary, by constituting 7th defendant Synod Court against the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore claims permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from functioning as Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese, and that the direction to continue on sabbatical leave is illegal and liable to be set aside. 21. The plaintiff/applicant also challenged the resolution dated 2.7.2010 appointing the 6th defendant as Bishop in-charge of CSI Coimbatore to be illegal, null and void on the following grounds: “(1) Each diocese is under the charge of a Bishop and is administered through a diocesan Council within the framework of the constitution of the Church of South India. Bishop of the Diocese is the ex-officio President of the Diocesan Council, the Episcopal religious head of the diocese and the Corporate Manager of all educational institutions administered by the diocese. Each diocese exercises powers and functions of administration within its territory on the basis of its own Diocesan Constitution. (2) As the Church of South India accepts a historic and constitutional episcopacy, the bishop of a diocese shall remain bishop of that diocese: (a) until he resigns; (b) or accepts the charge of another diocese; (c) or departs permanently from the diocese; (d) or be deprived of his charge by sentence of the Court of the Synod; (e) or be adjudged by the Executive Committee of the Synod to be mentally, physically or otherwise incapable of discharging the duties of his office; (f) or retires on completion of 65 years of age; (3) As long as the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai continues as Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese, whether he is on duty or on sabbatical leave, no other Bishop, including the sixth defendant can become or assume charge as in-charge Bishop of Coimbatore Diocese. (4) There is no provision in the Constitution of CSI to appoint the Bishop of a Diocese to be in-charge Bishop of another diocese. A bishop of a diocese cannot hold dual bishopric. As per Chapter V Rule 12(a), if the Bishop of a diocese accepts the charge of another diocese, he looses his bishopric of the earlier diocese.” 22. The plaintiff/applicant has challenged the dissolution of Coimbatore Diocese Executive Committee and appointment of Administrative Committee for Coimbatore Diocese on the following grounds: “19. The second defendant Synod Executive Committee Resolution No. EC:2010-25-3(c) dissolving CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee and second defendant Synod Executive Committee Resolution No. EC:2010-25-3(d) appointing thirteenth defendant Administrative Committee is illegal for the following grounds: ‘(1) The plaintiff/Bishop Dorai, permanent member of the first defendant Synod Executive Committee, was not invited for the meeting held on 1 and 2.7. 2010 and hence, the said meeting is illegal and the resolutions passed thereon could not be implemented. (2) The second defendant Synod Executive Committee has no powers to dissolve the executive committee of a constituent diocese. (3) The sixth defendant in his letter dated 2.7.2010 has stated that Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee was dissolved in exercise of powers conferred under Chapter IX Rule 15(a)(b)(c) of CSI Constitution. Rule 15(a) of Chapter IX reads as follows: “15(a) 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. If for any reason the Bishop of the Diocese is unable to furnish the particulars, the same may be called for from the Officers of the Diocese and such information shall be furnished” Rule 15(a) deals with calling for particulars relating to the administration and financial management of the diocese either from the Bishop of the concerned diocese or from the Officers of the concerned Diocese. No such particulars were called for by the second defendant Synod Executive Committee or third defendant Synod Working Committee either from the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai nor from Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee; (4) According to Chapter IX Rule 15(b) of CSI Constitution, if the second defendant Synod Executive Committee or the third defendant Synod Working Committee are convinced that the administration and financial management in a particular diocese needs the assistance of the Synod, the third defendant Synod Working Committee shall take appropriate action in consultation with the Executive of the concerned Diocese. Rule 15(b) of Chapter IX reads as follows: “15(b) If, at any time, the Synod Executive/the Working Committee/the Officers of the Synod are convinced that the situation of administration and financial management in a particular diocese needs the assistance of the Synod, the Working Committee shall, without delay, take appropriate action in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Diocese concerned, for restoring sound administration and financial management. The report of any such action shall be submitted to the Synod Executive Committee for review, within a period of six months, if necessary by a special meeting”. In the instant case, the third defendant Synod Working Committee has not taken any action and the mandatory consultation with Executive Committee of Coimbatore Diocese was not held. Hence, the resolution passed by the second defendant is in violation of Chapter IX Rule 15(B) of CSI Constitution; (5) According to Chapter IX Rule 15(c) of CSI Constitution, the first defendant Synod or the second defendant Synod Executive Committee is satisfied that a Diocesan Council is unable or unwilling to perform its functions as laid down in the constitution of CSI or the Constitution of the Diocese concerned, the first defendant Synod or the second defendant Synod Executive Committee on the recommendation of the Bishop concerned or the concerned Diocesan Executive Committee, may take necessary steps. Rule 15 (c) of Chapter IX reads as follows: “15(c) When the Synod or the Synod Executive is satisfied that a Diocesan council is unable or unwilling to perform its function as laid down in this constitution or in the Constitution of the Diocese, it may, on the recommendation of the Bishop of the Diocese or the Diocesan Executive or the Moderator, take such steps as it considers necessary for the good administration of the internal affairs of the Diocese; provided that action under this Clause shall require the consent of three – fourths of the members present and voting excluding the elected representatives of the Diocese concerned and shall remain in force only until the next meeting of the Synod.” As per Rule 15(c), the second respondent Synod Executive Committee can intervene in the administration of internal affairs of a diocese only on the following two occasions: (1) when the diocesan council is unable or unwilling to perform its functions as laid down in the constitution of CSI and Coimbatore and (2) on the recommendation of the Bishop of the Diocese or the Diocesan Executive Committee; But, in the instant case, XXX Coimbatore Diocesan Council was convened in November 2009 at Salem and it transacted all its business as per the constitution, all the committees and boards were elected as per the constitution and all the elected committees and boards are functioning as per the constitution. The present diocesan council is elected for the biennium 2009-2011. Rule 12 Chapter VIII of CSI Constitution reads as follows: “12. The term of the Diocesan Council shall be determined by each Diocesan council in its Constitution and shall begin from the date it is convened and constituted after an election. At its first session it shall elect its Officers, the Executive Committee and other Committees and they shall function until a new Council is duly convened and constituted. The Officers shall function from the close of the Council at which they are elected till the close of the first meeting of the new council.” The officers of the XXX Diocesan Council, elected in November 2009 for the biennium 2009-2011, will be in office until the close of the first meeting of the XXXI Diocesan Council. The Officers shall function from the close of the Council at which they are elected till the close of the first meeting of the new council.” The officers of the XXX Diocesan Council, elected in November 2009 for the biennium 2009-2011, will be in office until the close of the first meeting of the XXXI Diocesan Council. The executive committee, other committees and boards, elected in the XXX Diocesan Council in November 2009 for the biennium 2009-2011, shall function until a new Council i.e. XXXI Council is duly convened and constituted. The Diocesan Council, the Officer of the Diocese viz. ninth, tenth and eleventh defendants, the executive committee, other committees and boards shall continue in office. But, the Diocesan Executive Committee itself was dissolved, whereas the procedure laid down in Chapter IX Rule 15(c) of CSI Constitution can not be applied for dissolving the Executive Committee of a diocese.” 23. The next challenge is to appointment of 12th defendant as Moderator’s Commissary of Church of South India Coimbatore Diocese on the following grounds: “(1) The necessity and procedure of appointing a moderator Commissary is prescribed in Chapter V Rule 16 of the Constitution of Church of South India as follows: “Administration of Vacant Diocese: Notwithstanding anything in Chapter V of the Constitution, whenever any Bishopric of the Church falls vacant or a Diocesan Bishop is inhibited from functioning either in person or through a commissary, the charge and administration thereof shall devolve upon the Moderator who shall administer it with full jurisdiction in his own person, with or without the help of a Commissary or Commissaries appointed by him after consultation with the Working Committee of the Synod, until a new Bishop is appointed or the Diocesan Bishop is able to function” The above rule clearly states that moderator’s commissary could be appointed only in a vacant diocese. CSI Coimbatore Diocese is not a vacant diocese, as the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai will be the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese until the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai reaches the age of 65 years on 1.5.2013. CSI Coimbatore Diocese is not a vacant diocese, as the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai will be the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese until the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai reaches the age of 65 years on 1.5.2013. Hence, the appointment of twelveth defendant as moderator commissary for CSI Coimbatore Diocese is ultra virus of the constitution of Church of South India; (2) Synod Executive Committee, in its meeting held on 1st and 2.7.2010 resolved that the sixth defendant shall function as Bishop-in-charge of CSI Coimbatore and the sixth defendant vide his letter dated 12.1.2011 addressed to the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai stated that Synod Executive Committee in its meeting held on 29th and 30.11.2010 requested the sixth defendant to continue to be in-charge Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese. There is no provision for “in-charge Bishop” in the Constitution of CSI. As per Rule 12(a) Chapter V of CSI Constitution, if a Bishop of a diocese accepts the charge of another diocese, he looses his bishopric of his own diocese. Hence, the sixth defendant cannot be the Bishop of CSI Karnataka Central Diocese and CSI Coimbatore Diocese. Hence, an in-charge Bishop, sixth defendant cannot appoint a moderator commissary, which is in violation of Rule 16 of Chapter V of the Constitution of Church of South India. (3) Only after when the diocese is vacant, the administration of that diocese will devolve upon the moderator and then only Moderator commissary can be appointed by the moderator, in consultation with the third defendant Synod Working Committee, in his capacity as moderator and not in his capacity as in-charge bishop. Hence, the appointment of twelveth defendant as moderator commissary of CSI Coimbatore Diocese by the sixth defendant in his capacity as in-charge Bishop when the diocese is not vacant is ultra virus of the constitution of Church of South India. (4) Moderator commissary can be appointed in a vacant diocese only by the Moderator only after mandatory consultation with the third defendant/synod working committee. (5) CSI Coimbatore Diocese is not a vacant diocese. The appointment of twelveth defendant is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside for the aforesaid reasons, which clearly indicates that the sixth defendant has indulged in this illegal action in order to take over administration of CSI Coimbatore Diocese with ulterior motive.” 24. (5) CSI Coimbatore Diocese is not a vacant diocese. The appointment of twelveth defendant is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside for the aforesaid reasons, which clearly indicates that the sixth defendant has indulged in this illegal action in order to take over administration of CSI Coimbatore Diocese with ulterior motive.” 24. It is the case of plaintiff/applicant that holding of XXXI Session of Coimbatore Diocesan Council on 7th, 8th, 9th and 10.12.2011 was stayed by this Court in O.S. No. 1825 of 2011 filed in the Court of learned Principal District Court, Coimbatore. It is also the case of the plaintiff/applicant that 6th, 12th, 13th and 14th defendants have no jurisdiction to convene the XXXI Session of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council on the following grounds: “(1) There are 22 constituent dioceses in Church of South India. Every diocese is under the charge of a Bishop and it is administered through a diocesan council. Every diocesan council shall have its own constitution and the diocese shall be administered as per its own constitution. Diocesan council consists of: (a) Bishop of the said diocese; (b) All presbyters in active service in the diocese and (c) Lay representatives (both elected & nominated) shall consist of the following categories: (i) lay representatives elected from pastorates as per Chapter 1 Rule (A)(v) of Constitution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council; (ii) five elected by Joint Education Board, one from each area; (iii) Bishop’s wife (petitioner’s wife) and five elected by Women’s Work Committee, one from each area; (iv) two elected by medical work committee and (v) five elected by Youth Work Committee, one from each area (vi) ten members to be nominated by the Bishop as per Chapter 1 Rule (A)(vi) of Constitution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council; (2) The council elects its officers, executive committee and other committees, and they shall function until a new council is newly convened and constituted. The power and responsibility of convening of and constituting Diocesan Council is prescribed in Chapter VIII Rule 12 of CSI Constitution, which stipulates that Diocesan Executive Committee shall set in motion, at least six months before the expiry of the term of the council, the arranging for electing a new council. The power and responsibility of convening of and constituting Diocesan Council is prescribed in Chapter VIII Rule 12 of CSI Constitution, which stipulates that Diocesan Executive Committee shall set in motion, at least six months before the expiry of the term of the council, the arranging for electing a new council. The sixth defendant vide his letter dated 22.11.2011 has stated that the administrative committee cannot perform the functions of the Diocesan Executive Committee in the case of election of Diocesan Treasurer. This applies to convening of the council also. Hence, the illegally appointed administrative committee cannot be substituted in the place of Diocesan Executive Committee and it cannot convene the council. (3) The term of Coimbatore Diocesan Council is two years. The XXX Coimbatore Diocesan Council was constituted on 22.11.2009 at Salem and hence, as per Chapter VIII Rule 12 of CSI Constitution, the XXXI Session of Coimbatore Diocesan Council should be convened and constituted on or before 22.11.2011 by the Secretary of Coimbatore Diocesan Council and the invitation to the members of the XXXI session of Coimbatore Diocesan Council should be sent by the tenth defendant/Secretary of Coimbatore Diocesan Council only. The sixth defendant vide his letter dated 22.11.2011 has stated that the administrative committee cannot perform the functions of the Diocesan Executive Committee in the case of election of Diocesan Treasurer. This applies to nomination of diocesan council members from pastorates. (4) The appointment of sixth defendant as Bishop-in-charge of Coimbatore Diocese, the appointment of twelveth defendant as Moderator’s Commissary of Coimbatore Diocese, the appointment of thirteenth defendant Administrative Committee and the appointment of fourteenth defendant as administrative officer are illegal for the reasons stated in the previous paragraphs. (5) The twelveth defendant has created 22 new pastorates and he has illegally invited them to participate in the illegal council to be convened. As per Chapter 1 Rule D(12) of Coimbatore Diocesan Constitution, the Diocesan Council, the highest rule making body, is the authority to bifurcate a pastorate or create a new pastorate in the diocese through the Diocesan Executive Committee and the said rule reads as follows: “The Diocesan Council shall arrange through the Executive Committee for the division of the diocese into Pastorates. It shall also draft a constitution for Pastorate Committees and amend or add to or delete or suspend the constitution of the Pastorate Committees” Chapter 1 Rule D(12) of Coimbatore Diocesan Constitution reads as follows: “A Pastorate means an organized congregation or group of congregations recognized as such by the Diocesan Council under the care and superintendence of a Presbyter” As per Chapter II Rule 19 (Functions of Executive Committee) states as follows: “Diocesan Executive Committee shall determine or alter the boundaries of the pastorates, the groupings of congregations within a pastorate and formation of new pastorate” The above three provisions clearly state that the powers to create new pastorates vests with the Diocesan Executive Committee and the Diocesan Council. The sixth defendant vide his letter dated 22.11.2011 has stated that the administrative committee cannot perform the functions of the Diocesan Executive Committee in the case of election of Diocesan Treasurer. This applies to bifurcation of pastorates and creation of new pastorates. But, the twelveth defendant, vide his letters dated 2.9.2010, 24.11.2010 and 26.11.2010 has suo moto, without power and jurisdiction, has created 22 following new pastorates in Coimbatore Diocese and has also suo moto nominated the following members to represent the following respective churches in the council and the same is illegal: Name of New Pastorate Priest Member Lay member 1. Coimbatore Area: (1) Alanthurai 1 1 (2) Perur & Vadavalli 1 1 (3) Visuvasapuram 1 1 (4) Kaniyur & Chinna Mooperipalayam 0 1 (5) Ondipudur & Irugur 0 1 (6) Podanur & Malumichampatti 1 1 2. Nilgiris Area: (7) Masinagudi, Kallati, Sholada Pastorate 1 1 (8) Lovedale, Muthorai, Welbeck 1 1 (9) Thanthanadu and Masakkal 0 1 (10) Adderley, Gurency 0 1 3. Erode Area: (11) KK Nagar, Erode 1 1 (12) CSI Christ Church, Lakkapuram 1 1 (13) Slater Nagar, Thuthupathi, Pattakarampalayam 0 1 (14) Ellispet, Perunthalaiyur, Appakoodal 0 1 (15) Krishnampalayam & Maravapalayam 1 1 4. Salem Area: (16) Steel Plant, Kanthampatti, Andipatti, Tharamangalam 0 1 (17) Sukkampatti, Samayapuram & Harur 0 1 (18) Pennagaram & Pangunatham 0 1 (19) Bargur, Samathananagar & Belavarthy 0 1 (20) Barur & Beerajanur 0 1 5. Salem Area: (16) Steel Plant, Kanthampatti, Andipatti, Tharamangalam 0 1 (17) Sukkampatti, Samayapuram & Harur 0 1 (18) Pennagaram & Pangunatham 0 1 (19) Bargur, Samathananagar & Belavarthy 0 1 (20) Barur & Beerajanur 0 1 5. Tirupur Area: (21) Perumanallur, Kunathur, Karunampathi 0 1 (22) Nambiyur, Kedarai 0 1 (6) Hence, the participation of the above mentioned illegally created 22 pastorates in XXXI Session of Coimbatore Diocesan Council will nullify the convening of XXXI Diocesan Council and will lead to multiplication of litigations as XXXI council has to elect the panel for the Bishopric of CSI Coimbatore Diocese when the petitioner / Bishop Dorai of CSI Coimbatore Diocese retires on 1.5.2013. (7) If a new pastorate is created or bifurcated, the pastorate should submit audited statement of accounts for two years to the Diocese and pay assessment to the diocese. Hence, based on the number of voting members, number of Diocesan Council members to be elected from the pastorate will be decided as follows: Voting Members Diocesan Council Member 100 – 275 One 276 – 400 Two 401 – 1000 Three Above 1000 One member for every 500 members (maximum 6 members) If the pastorate general body is not able to elect diocesan council member and in the alternative if the pastorate committee is not able to elect lay members among its members, the Diocesan Executive Committee shall nominate the Pastorate representatives to the Council. As the Diocesan executive committee has been illegally dissolved, the administrative committee, consisting of outside people, cannot nominate lay representatives for the pastorates to diocesan council. But, in the case of above mentioned 22 illegally created pastorates, the thirteenth defendant administrative committee has nominated lay representatives for the above pastorates to the diocesan council, which is illegal. The sixth defendant vide his letter dated 22.11.2011 has stated that the administrative committee cannot perform the functions of the Diocesan Executive Committee in the case of election of Diocesan Treasurer. This applies to nomination of diocesan council members from pastorates. (8) Elections were not held in the following three pastorates and thirteenth defendant administrative committee has nominated lay representatives for the above pastorates to the diocesan council, which is illegal: Pastorates Serial Nos. 1. CSI Wesley Church, Kothagiri 136 & 137 2. CSI Kangeyan Pastorate 245 & 246 3. This applies to nomination of diocesan council members from pastorates. (8) Elections were not held in the following three pastorates and thirteenth defendant administrative committee has nominated lay representatives for the above pastorates to the diocesan council, which is illegal: Pastorates Serial Nos. 1. CSI Wesley Church, Kothagiri 136 & 137 2. CSI Kangeyan Pastorate 245 & 246 3. CSI Immanuel Church, Salem 273, 274 & 275 The sixth defendant vide his letter dated 22.11.2011 has stated that the administrative committee cannot perform the functions of the Diocesan Executive Committee in the case of election of Diocesan Treasurer. This applies to nomination of diocesan council members from the above pastorates also. (9) As per Chapter 1 (B) Rule 3 of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Constitution, the Treasurer of the Diocesan Council i.e. eleventh defendant should prepare and send an upto date financial statement to all the members of the Diocesan Council at least one month before the meeting of the Council. As per the said rule, the eleventh defendant, the Treasurer of the Diocese, should have sent the said financial statement to all council members on or before 6.11.2011. But, it was not sent. Hence, the council cannot be convened. (10) As per Chapter V Rule 5 of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Constitution, pastorates, which have not submitted the audited statement of accounts to the diocese on or before 31.5.2011 (as amended), are debarred from sending its elected members to the council. The fifteenth defendant vide his letter dated 22.6.2011 has requested all churches, pastorates and institutions to submit their audited statement to the diocese immediately, which shows that most of the pastorates have not submitted audit statement within the time prescribed in the constitution. But, the sixth, twelveth, thirteenth and fourteenth defendants have invited the members of defaulted churches to attend the council, which makes the convening of the XXXI council illegal. (11) As per Chapter V Rule 5 of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Constitution, pastorates, which have not paid assessment to the diocese on or before 31.5.2011 shall be debarred from sending its elected representative to the council. The fifteenth defendant has sent to diocesan council members only the audit statement for the year 2009-2010, wherein it is seen that all the pastorates from Tirupur area have not remitted assessment for the year 2009-2010 and hence, those pastorates cannot send their elected representatives to diocesan council. The fifteenth defendant has sent to diocesan council members only the audit statement for the year 2009-2010, wherein it is seen that all the pastorates from Tirupur area have not remitted assessment for the year 2009-2010 and hence, those pastorates cannot send their elected representatives to diocesan council. (12) Audit statement for the year 2010-2011 has not been furnished to the council members even today and hence, council cannot be convened. (13) The petitioner is the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese. As per Chapter 1(A)(i) of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Constitution, the petitioner/Bishop is the President of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council and a permanent member of the council. But, the plaintiff’s name has been deliberately omitted. (14) As per Chapter 1 Rule (A)(iv)(2) of Constitution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council, Bishop’s wife (plaintiff’s wife) is the ex-officio member of the diocesan council, whereas her name is not in the final list of representatives; (15) As per Chapter 1 Rule (A)(iv)(2) of Constitution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council, five women representatives to the council are to be elected by Women’s Works Committee at the rate of one from each area. But, no such election was held and the five nominees from Serial Nos.298 to 302 in the council members list are not properly elected and hence, they cannot participate in the XXXI session. (16) As per Chapter 1 Rule (A)(iv)(3) of Constitution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council, two representatives are to be elected by medical work committee. But, no such election was held and the two nominees from Serial No. 313 to 314 in the council members list are not properly elected and hence, they cannot participate in the XXXI session. (17) As per Chapter 1 Rule (A)(iv)(v) of Constitution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council, five youth representatives to the council are to be elected by Youth Work Committee at the rate of one from each area. But, no such election was held and the five nominees from Serial No. 303 to 307 in the council members list are not properly elected and hence, they cannot participate in the XXXI session. (18) As per Chapter 1 Rule (A)(vi) of Constitution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council, the petitioner / Bishop can nominate ten members to the diocesan council, whereas the sixth defendant, without power and members list, which is illegal and they cannot participate in XXXI session. (18) As per Chapter 1 Rule (A)(vi) of Constitution of CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council, the petitioner / Bishop can nominate ten members to the diocesan council, whereas the sixth defendant, without power and members list, which is illegal and they cannot participate in XXXI session. (19) Chapter VIII Rule 2(d) of CSI Constitution prescribes ratio for constitution of a diocesan council as follows: “Lay representatives, whether elected, nominated or ex-officio, atlesat twice in number to the Presbyters who are member of the council and not greater than thrice that number” Lay representatives from may pastorates are legally debarred from attending the XXXI council due to non-payment of assessment by pastorates to the diocese within due date, non-submission of audit statements by pastorates to the diocese within the time prescribed in the constitution, illegal nomination of members to the council from Joint Education Board, illegal nomination of members to the council from Women’s Work Committee, illegal nomination of members to the council from Youth Work Committee, illegal nomination of members to the council from Medical Work Committee, non-inclusion of the name of petitioner Bishop and non-inclusion of the name of petitioner Bishop’s wife reduce the number of lay representatives to the council and hence, the above prescribed ratio cannot be achieved and hence, convening of XXXI session by the fourth defendant / Bishop-in-charge of CSI Coimbatore Diocese, twelveth defendant / Moderator’s Commissary, thirteenth defendant/Secretary of Administrative Committee and fourteenth defendant / Administrative Officer is illegal.” 25. It is submitted, that 6th defendant constituted 7th defendant Synod Court under the President ship of the former Deputy Moderator, i.e. 4th defendant with 8th defendant as its member, in which nine charges were framed against the plaintiff/applicant. The plaintiff attended thee hearings of Synod Court on 24.6.2011, 16.7.2011 and 5.8.2011. The next hearing fixed on 28.8.2011 was not held as the Bishops had gone to Holy Land. The plaintiff did not attend the hearings held on 26.10.2011 and 21.11.2011 due to his illness. 26. As already noticed above, FIR was filed against 4th, 6th, 8th defendant and eight others, which resulted in defeating their right to constitute, preside over and participate in the 7th defendant Synod Court against the plaintiff. 27. The plaintiff did not attend the hearings held on 26.10.2011 and 21.11.2011 due to his illness. 26. As already noticed above, FIR was filed against 4th, 6th, 8th defendant and eight others, which resulted in defeating their right to constitute, preside over and participate in the 7th defendant Synod Court against the plaintiff. 27. The plaintiff also claims, that constitution of Synod Court by 6th defendant is illegal, in view of constitution, which prescribe that when the charge is brought against a Bishop, the Moderator has to consult all the Bishops of CSI, but if he rules that the charges are serious, after consultation, he himself is responsible for deciding, that a Court shall be constituted, but no such mandatory consultation was held. 28. It is also the case of the plaintiff/applicant, that the Moderator was the President of Synod Court, but the 6th defendant, the then Moderator did not preside over the Synod Court, which was presided over by the Deputy Moderator, i.e. 4th defendant. 29. It is contended, that the Synod Court was to consist of the Moderator, five Bishops, two Presbyters and two laymen, who were to conduct preliminary enquiry to find out; (a) whether the charges are true; (b) whether charges are false; and (c) whether any point ecclesiastical law arises. But this procedure was not followed. The proceedings of Synod Court were conducted by advocate Mr. Robert Bruce, who had appeared against the plaintiff, therefore, enquiry was vitiated by participation of an interested person. 30. It is also the submission of the plaintiff/applicant, that the 6th defendant informed the plaintiff vide letter dated 9.1.2012, that he was no longer the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore and declared that CSI Coimbatore Diocese was a vacant diocese, which according to the plaintiff, is illegal and liable to be set aside on the following grounds: “(1) The constitution of the synod Court by the sixth defendant is illegal. In respect of constitution of the synod Court, Chapter XI Rule 25 of CSI Constitution prescribes that when a charge is brought against a Bishop, the Moderator shall consult with all the Bishops of the CSI, and if he rules that the charge is serious, but after consultation he himself shall be responsible for deciding if a Court shall be constituted. But, no such mandatory consultation of the Bishops Council took place as no such resolution was furnished to the plaintiff. But, no such mandatory consultation of the Bishops Council took place as no such resolution was furnished to the plaintiff. Hence, the consultation of the synod Court by the sixth defendant, then Moderator is illegal; (2) As per the said rule the Moderator shall be the President of the Synod Court. But, the sixth defendant, then Moderator, did not preside over the synod Court and it was presided over by the fourth defendant, then Deputy Moderator. Hence, the constitution of the synod Court is illegal; (3) Chapter XI Rule 25 of CSI Constitution prescribes that when a charge is brought against a Bishop, the Moderator shall consult with all the Bishops of the CSI, and if he rules that the charge is serious, but after consultation he himself shall be responsible for deciding if a Court shall be constituted. No such charge was brought against the plaintiff. Hence, the constitution of synod Court is illegal; (4) As per Chapter XI Rule 25 of CSI Constitution, the synod Court shall consist of the Moderator, five Bishops, two Presbyters and two laymen. As per Chapter XI Rule 27 of CSI Constitution, the whole Court, consisting of the Moderator, five Bishops, two Presbyters and two laymen, shall conduct a preliminary enquiry and shall decide (a) whether the charges are true; (b) whether the charges are false and (c) whether any point of ecclesiastical law arises. No such procedures were adopted in the instant case. The full Court never met. (5) The proceedings of the synod Court were conducted by advocate Mr. Robert Bruce, who has appeared in favour of the synod against the plaintiff. Hence, the enquiry is vitiated by participation of an interested person. Oral request of the plaintiff seeking the assistance of a lawyer was turned down. (6) Copy of daily proceedings of the synod Court were not furnished to the plaintiff. (7) The plaintiff/Bishop Dorai attended three hearings of the Synod Court on 24.6.2011, 16.7.2011 and 5.8.2011. The hearing fixed on 28.8.2011 was not held as the Bishops had gone to Holy Land. The plaintiff was not able to attend the hearings on 26.10.2011 and 21.11.2011 due to his illness for which he had already produced medical certificates. Meanwhile, FIR was filed against sixth defendant, fourth defendant, eighth defendant and 8 others for having misappropriated Rs. The hearing fixed on 28.8.2011 was not held as the Bishops had gone to Holy Land. The plaintiff was not able to attend the hearings on 26.10.2011 and 21.11.2011 due to his illness for which he had already produced medical certificates. Meanwhile, FIR was filed against sixth defendant, fourth defendant, eighth defendant and 8 others for having misappropriated Rs. 10 lakhs from CSI Ketti Engineering College of CSI Coimbatore Diocese and thereby the sixth, fourth and eight defendants looses the right to constitute, preside over and participate respectively in the seventh defendant Synod Court against the plaintiff. (8) The plaintiff received a letter of one Arul Prabhu dated 24.10.2011 addressed to all Synod Officers and copy marked to all CSI Bishops, wherein the said Arul Prabhu has stated that FIR in Crime No. 110/2011 has been registered in Nilgiris District Ketti Police Station against the sixth defendant S. Vasanthakumar, fourth defendant G.Devakadasham, eighth defendant / Bishop Paul Vasanthakumar and 8 others under Section 406, 470, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) read with 120(B) of IPC for having misappropriated Rs. 10 Lakhs from CSI Engineering College at Ketti in CSI Coimbatore Diocese. Further, it was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai that fourth defendant has filed a petition in Madras High Court in Criminal Original Petition S.R. No. 46375 of 2011 through advocate Mr.Robert Bruce seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 110 of 201 of Ketti Police Station, wherein the fourth defendant G. Devakadasham has submitted that Bishop, Coimbatore is on sabbatical leave and is facing proceedings by the synod for his removal from office of Bishop as follows: “11. It is submitted that M.M. Philip the General Secretary, CSI filed W.P. No. 23435 of 2011 seeking to quash the impugned FIR. The 2nd respondent entered appearance filed counter affidavit and filed two typed set of papers. The Counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and the documents filed by him in W.P. No. 23435 of 2011 reveal that the complaint filed by him is malicious and motivated. The Bishop, Coimbatore is on sabbatical leave and is facing proceedings by the Synod for his removal from office of Bishop. The Bishop Coimbatore filed a suit before this Hon’ble Court and withdrew the same. The Bishop, Coimbatore is on sabbatical leave and is facing proceedings by the Synod for his removal from office of Bishop. The Bishop Coimbatore filed a suit before this Hon’ble Court and withdrew the same. The documents filed by the 2nd respondent in W.P. No. 23435 of 2011 reveal that most of the documents filed in the suit filed by the Bishop have been exhibited in W.P. No. 23435 of 2011. It appears that the 2nd respondent is setup to malign the Church of South India and also to impede the enquiry pending against the Bishop, Coimbatore Diocese.” The above statement clearly shows that the fourth defendant in his capacity as President of the seventh defendant Synod Court has expressed his pre-determined mind and the plaintiff will not get justice in his hands. (9) Further, the said statement has been filed through advocate Robert Bruce, who is the lawyer of fourth defendant/Bishop Devakadasham and advocate Robert Bruce attends the Synod Court and he conducts the proceedings of the synod Court, whereas the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai was not given an opportunity of defending himself through a lawyer. (10) Hence, the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai vide his letters dated 23.11.2011, sent by RPAD, requested the sixth defendant to reconstitute the Synod Court excluding the fourth defendant and eight defendant. The plaintiff also submitted the copy of the said letter to the fourth defendant on 29.11.2012 and requested the fourth defendant not to proceed with the synod Court until the sixth defendant takes action on the letter of the plaintiff dated 23.11.2011. (11) Hence, the constitution of the seventh defendant synod Court against the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai by the sixth defendant, presided over by the fourth defendant G.Devakadasham and participated by the eighth defendant/Bishop Paul Vasanthakumar is illegal. (12) FIR in Crime No. 110/2011 has been registered in Nilgiris District Ketti Police Station against the sixth defendant S.Vasanthakumar, fourth defendant G.Devakadasham, eighth defendant / Bishop Paul Vasanthakumar and 8 others under Section 406, 470, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) read with 120(B) of IPC for having misappropriated Rs. 10 Lakhs from CSI Engineering College at Ketti in CSI Coimbatore Diocese and hence, the sixth, seventh and eighth defendants loose the right to constitute, preside over and participate respectively in the seventh defendant/Synod Court against the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai. 10 Lakhs from CSI Engineering College at Ketti in CSI Coimbatore Diocese and hence, the sixth, seventh and eighth defendants loose the right to constitute, preside over and participate respectively in the seventh defendant/Synod Court against the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai. (13) Fourth defendant has filed a petition in Madras High Court in Criminal Original Petition S.R. No. 46375 of 2011 through advocate Mr.Robert Bruce seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 110 of 2011 of Ketti Police Station, wherein fourth defendant has submitted that Bishop of Coimbatore is on Sabbatical leave and is facing proceedings by the Synod for his removal from office of Bishop. The above statement clearly shows that the fourth defendant G.Devakadasham in his capacity as President of the seventh defendant Synod Court has expressed his pre-determined mind and the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai will not get justice in his hands. (14) The plaintiff vide his letter 29.11.2011 requested the sixth defendant to reconstitute the seventh defendant Synod Court excluding the fourth defendant and eight defendant. But, without considering the objections submitted by the plaintiff, the seventh defendant Court passed verdict holding that the plaintiff is found guilty of following three charges: (15) The plaintiff was not given opportunity to submit final statement before the verdict was passed by the synod Court. This is violation of principles of natural justice. (16) Second show-cause notice was not issued to the plaintiff before the impugned orders were passed by the synod Court and sixth defendant / then Moderator. (17) The synod Court has held that the plaintiff was guilty of the first charge which reads as follows: “While discharging responsibilities as Bishop of Coimbatore Diocese from 31.7.2000 to 4.7.2010, you have abused your authority as Bishop and facilitated transfer of funds in the name of TTI, Erode by cash/DD and facilitated the embezzlement of the same. You have directed the treasurer of the diocese to transfer the money to your brother M.Moorthy, the Secretary of the TTI, Erode and to one T.Manesaon. The total amount spent for TTI as per diocesan Honorary Treasurer’s letter dated 7.1.2005 is Rs. You have directed the treasurer of the diocese to transfer the money to your brother M.Moorthy, the Secretary of the TTI, Erode and to one T.Manesaon. The total amount spent for TTI as per diocesan Honorary Treasurer’s letter dated 7.1.2005 is Rs. 72,70,000/- The money has not been accounted.” In respect of the above charges, the plaintiff submitted the following reply to the Synod Court in respect of the first charge and submitted eleven documents: “I never abused my authority as Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese, also as the Bishop of the CSI Coimbatore Diocese, as per the constitution of the Diocese and also as per the constitution of the Church of South India, I have never exercised any direct control over the finances of the Diocese excepting a general oversight of the financial administration of the Diocese. As per the decision of the Diocese office bearers, decision of the Diocesan Executive Committee, to establish a new Institution Teacher Training Institute at Erode, Mr. Murthy was appointed as Correspondent for the TTI and two persons. Mr. Murthy and Prof. T. Maneson were entrusted with the work of renovation of old bungalow, creation of Infrastructures to the satisfaction of the inspection team from N.C.T.E. The said amount Rs. 72,70,000/- released as per the letter of the Diocesan Treasurer dated 7.1.2005 was for establishing the TTI, Erode. The letter was addressed to Prof. T. Maneson one of the persons given the responsibility to establish a new institution. Total expenditure for the establishment of CSI Teacher Training Erode is not only Rs. 72,00,000/- as mentioned in the Treasurer’s letter, nor the voucher supplied along with the charge sheet. The total amount released for the establishment of the Teacher Training, Erode was Rs. 79,46,266/-. The amount was released as follows: Year Payment (Rs.) 2001-2002 20,250 2002-2003 2,75,560 2003-2004 39,67,000 2004-2005 36,83,456 Total 79,46,266 The statement of accounts and the audited statements were submitted to the Diocesan Executive Committee. The amount was released by the Diocesan treasurer and the same was received by Mr. T. Maneson and Mr. Murthy. The vouchers are the evidence. The vouchers supplied along with Charge No. 1 itself proved that the money released by the Treasurer was only after obtaining proper vouchers from concerned persons who received the money. My note for the Treasurer’s note and in the request letter of Mr. T. Maneson and Mr. T. Maneson and Mr. Murthy. The vouchers are the evidence. The vouchers supplied along with Charge No. 1 itself proved that the money released by the Treasurer was only after obtaining proper vouchers from concerned persons who received the money. My note for the Treasurer’s note and in the request letter of Mr. T. Maneson and Mr. Murthy, Correspondent of TTI was not on the capacity as the controller of the finances but only as a request to the Treasurer for the preliminary work of starting a new institution as per the decision of the Diocesan concerned Committees. Moreover, I have never given any recommendation or instructions to the Treasurer to release funds in cash/DD, for whatever money was released by the Treasurer for the establishment of new institution Treasurer Swamidoss acknowledged in his letter dated 25.4.2005 addressed to Mr. Murthy, Correspondent that he was responsible for every rupee spent. As Bishop of Coimbatore Diocese, I have general over sight of the financial administration of the Diocese as per the Constitution, I requested the Honorary Treasurer of the diocese in my letter dated 20.4.2005, to furnish the accounts of the said Institution in the Executive Committee. I have also asked Mr. Murthy and Mr. Maneson to summit the accounts to the Diocesan Treasurer letter dated 28.4.2005. Hence, from the above said explanations, I confirm that I have not abused my authority as Bishop and facilitated transfer of funds in the name of TTI, Erode by cash / DD and facilitated embezzlement of the same. (18) The synod Court has held that the plaintiff was guilty of the second charge which reads as follows: “While discharging responsibilities as Bishop of Coimbatore Diocese from 31.7.000 to 4.7.2010, you have abused your authority as Bishop and facilitated transfer of funds to your Brother Mr. Moorthy and Mr. T. Maneson in the name of CSI Erode Christian College of Arts & Science, Erode by case/DD. The amount is not accounted for till date” The plaintiff submitted his pre-enquiry reply as follows: “I have not abused my authority as Bishop of Coimbatore Diocese and facilitated transfer of funds to Mr. Murthy and to Mr. T. Maneson. As early in 2004 in the meeting of the Diocesan Executive Committee, it was resolved to establish a College at Erode in the name of “Erode Christian College of Arts and Science for women”, initially appointing Prof. Murthy and to Mr. T. Maneson. As early in 2004 in the meeting of the Diocesan Executive Committee, it was resolved to establish a College at Erode in the name of “Erode Christian College of Arts and Science for women”, initially appointing Prof. Maneson, Convener of Diocesan Education Committee, Mr. Murthy, a member of CSI Brought memorial Church, Erode and the Rev. Jayaseelan, one of the Executive Committee members to execute the work. As per the decision of the Diocesan office bearers held on 9.7.2003, Mr. Murthy was appointed as the Secretary of the College to speed up the work of Arts and Science College, Erode. Subsequently, the appointment was ratified in the meeting of the Diocesan Executive Committee held on 15.4.2005. To attend all the preliminary work of the College, Prof. Maneson, Mr. Murthy and Rev. Jayaseelan were requested by the Executive Committee in its meeting. As it was the Diocesan project, funds were released when required by the Diocesan Treasurer, Mr. Swamidoss. The amount was released by the Diocesan Treasurer Mr. Swamidoss and not by the Bishop. The amount was released by the diocesan Treasurer as per the decision of the Executive Committee to establish this new college. I never directed the Treasurer to release any amount for this purpose in Cash/DD. The vouchers will reveal the fact that the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,11,80,000/- was released by the Treasurer. I never had any control over finance as per the Constitution. Only nominally for the Treasurer’s note in the request letter for funds, I have put my signature with a note like “please do the needful”, etc., I submit that the total amount released for the establishment of CSI Erode Christian College was not only Rs. 1,11,80,000/- in the vouchers supplied along with charge No. 2. The total amount released by the Treasurer for the establishment of CSI Erode Christian College of Arts and Science was Rs. 1,90,15,672.75. The amount paid by the Treasurer was as follows: Year Payment (Rs.) 2005-2006 1,10,37,222.75 2006-2007 25,75,000. 2007-2008 54,03,450. Total 1,90,15,672.75 This amount has been utilized for the establishment of CSI Christian College at Erode and the accounts were submitted in the executive committee Minutes No. X2005 to 2007:56 and 57. The Diocesan Treasurer who is responsible for keeping this account asked Mr. 2007-2008 54,03,450. Total 1,90,15,672.75 This amount has been utilized for the establishment of CSI Christian College at Erode and the accounts were submitted in the executive committee Minutes No. X2005 to 2007:56 and 57. The Diocesan Treasurer who is responsible for keeping this account asked Mr. Murthy, Secretary of the College to give account for the money received for the establishment of the new college. Later on Mr. Murthy, Mr. T. Maneson and the then Diocesan Secretary Rev. S. Jayaseelan subsequently presented accounts in the Executive Committee. The Vouchers supplied along with charge No. 2 itself through the amount released by the treasurer was only after obtaining proper vouchers from concerned person. The relevant minutes are enclosed herewith and the actions taken in the Executive Committee for the delay in submission of accounts and also resolutions of the Executive Committee for re-auditing and further actions. All the relevant records are enclosed to prove that I have not abused my authority as Bishop in financial administration of the Diocese and never exercised any direct control over the finance. Mr. Murthy, Secretary of the College, Mr. T. Maneson and Rev. S.Jayaseelan, Secretary submitted the auditor’s statement of accounts of this Institute for the period 2005-2007 which is enclosed and later on the same was approved. (19) The synod Court has held that the plaintiff was guilty of the second charge which reads as follows: “While discharging responsibilities as Bishop, Coimbatore Diocese from 31.7.2000 to 4.7.2010, you have abused your authority as Bishop you and your brothers M/s.M.Dhanapal, Moorthy to receive money from appointees in the CSI Coimbatore Diocesan schools and facilitated transfer of funds.” The plaintiff submitted the following pre-enquiry reply: “Firstly the Bishop is not connected anyway in this matter. Secondly, to the enclosure of the charge No. 4, Diocesan Treasurer’s letter dated 20.10.2003 and the letter of 8 teachers who made complaint are enclosed. No. 8 in the list C.Boobesh was not given appointment in the Elementary School, Erode. It is a fabricated allegation. Diocesan Treasurer in his letter dated 20.10.2005 addressed to Mr. Dhanapal, Correspondent for CSI Primary School, Erode, writes stating that he has given an advance of three lakhs Rs. 3,00,000/- on 19.11.2004 for payment to the teachers whose appointment were not approved. This amount was not returned by the Correspondent. No voucher copy for this amount received by Mr. Dhanapal is enclosed as proof. Dhanapal, Correspondent for CSI Primary School, Erode, writes stating that he has given an advance of three lakhs Rs. 3,00,000/- on 19.11.2004 for payment to the teachers whose appointment were not approved. This amount was not returned by the Correspondent. No voucher copy for this amount received by Mr. Dhanapal is enclosed as proof. In his letter addressed to the Treasurer Mr. Dhanapal stated he did not receive Rs. 3,00,000/- as an advance from the Treasurer on 19.11.2004 for the payment to the Teachers whose appointments were not approved. While the approval for appointments (given by the Diocese) of seven teachers were delayed, and in the meantime these seven teachers got appointments in the government schools, these teachers demanded the voluntary contribution given to Mr. Dhanapal and it has been approved by the Diocesan finance and Property Committee. Hence, the Diocese returned the voluntary contribution given by seven teachers from the diocesan funds. Diocesan Treasurer settled this matter through Mr. Maneson, Convener, Joint Board of Education. The seven teachers acknowledged the returning of their voluntary contribution. Their acknowledgment of the settlement of this matter has been given in writing by them to the Correspondent, Mr. Dhanapal. The acknowledgement given by seven teachers are enclosed for reference.” (20) Even though the seventh defendant Court has held that “Though it may not be said that Bishop Dorai misappropriated the finance, it can be clearly stated that he misused his powers as Bishop”. Synod Court failed to establish that the plaintiff misused his powers as Bishop. (21) When the synod Court found that there was no misappropriation of finance by the plaintiff, the synod Court should not have imposed the extreme sentence that plaintiff Bishop Dorai cannot be continued as a Diocesan Bishop any longer, which is shockingly disproportionate and excessive. (22) When the synod Court found that there was no charge against the plaintiff bishop in respect of ecclesiastical matter, faith and doctrine, the synod Court should not have imposed such harsh sentence on an Episcopal head which is irrational and illegal. (22) When the synod Court found that there was no charge against the plaintiff bishop in respect of ecclesiastical matter, faith and doctrine, the synod Court should not have imposed such harsh sentence on an Episcopal head which is irrational and illegal. (23) The cause of action for the suit arose at Royapettah, Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court on 9.2.2010 when the third defendant CSI Synod Working Committee appointed a fact finding committee, on 2.7.2010 when the second defendant CSI Synod Executive Committee dissolved the Executive Committee of CSI Coimbatore Diocese and appointed thirteenth defendant Administrative Committee for CSI Coimbatore Diocese, on 29.11.2010 when the second defendant CSI Synod Executive Committee dissolved the fact finding committee, on 30.11.2010 when the plaintiff/Bishop Dorai cancelled his sabbatical leave and joined duty as Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese, on 17.3.2011 when the sixth defendant arbitrarily appointed the twelveth defendant as Moderator Commissary of CSI Coimbatore Diocese, on 30.3.2011 when the plaintiff filed C.S. No. 268/2011 and interim order was granted; on 5.9.2011 when the sixth defendant and 3 others sent intimation for counsel, on 19.9.2011 when FIR was filed against the sixth defendant, fourth defendant, eighth defendant & 10 other for misappropriation of Rs. 10 lakhs, on 31.10.2011 when the seventh defendant filed an affidavit against the plaintiff and on 23.11.2011 when the plaintiff submitted letter to sixth and fourth defendants to reconstitute the seventh defendant synod Court, on 15.12.2011 when the seventh defendant synod Court passed its order and on 9.1.2012 when the sixth defendant passed order of removal.” 31. On the pleadings in the plaint referred to above, above mentioned applications have been filed for grant of interim relief. 32. Learned counsel for the applicant in the written argument vehemently contended, that enquiry held against the applicant was bad in law, as he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry for the reason that he was not well on two days of hearing and furthermore in view of the fact that FIR was registered against 4th, 6th and 8th defendants, they lost the right to constitute or preside over the Synod Court, therefore, a request was made to reconstitute Synod Court by excluding 4th and 8th defendants. 33. 33. A request was also made to the 4th respondent not to proceed with the Synod Court until the 6th respondent took action on the letter, calling for reconstitution of the Board, but inspite of this, the Synod Court submitted its report, holding that charges 1, 2 and 4 stood proved against the applicant, and removed the plaintiff/applicant as Bishop. The information qua this was sent on 9.1.2012. 34. It is also the contention, that constitution of Synod Court by 6th respondent was illegal, being in violation of Chapter XI Rule 5 of CSI constitution. It was contended, that according to the rule, the Moderator was to be the President of the Synod Court, but in this case, 6th respondent, then Moderator did not preside over the Synod Court, which was presided over by the 4th respondent. 35. However, it may be noticed here that under Chapter XI Rule 8 of the Constitution of CSI, decision of Court of Synod is not subject to challenge before any person or Court outside the CSI. 36. It is the contention, that as per rules, that the Bishops of CSI were not consulted to form opinion whether the charge was serious. It is submitted, that in this case, proceedings of the Synod Court was conducted by advocate named Mr. Robert Bruce, who appeared against the plaintiff/applicant, therefore, enquiry stood vitiated. 37. It was also contended that daily proceedings were not furnished to the plaintiff/applicant. In support of the contention, that proceedings stood vitiated because of participation of Mr. Robert Bruce, reliance is also placed on the affidavit filed in this Court in W.P. No. 23435 of 2011. 38. It is contended, that this affidavit showed the predetermined mind. 39. It was next contended, that the applicant was not given opportunity to submit final statement before verdict was passed by the Synod Court, therefore, there is violation of principle of natural justice, nor 2nd show cause notice was issued by the 6th respondent to the plaintiff/applicant. 40. It was then contended, that even as per the report, the plaintiff / applicant did not misappropriate the finance, but only misused the power as Bishop, therefore, extreme punishment of removal is not sustainable. 41. In support of this, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Balmakund v. Nanak Chand, AIR 1929 All 433 . 42. 41. In support of this, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Balmakund v. Nanak Chand, AIR 1929 All 433 . 42. In order to support this contention that suit is maintainable, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & others v. Moran Mar Marthoma, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that explanation to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure brings out legislative intention of extending operation of the Section where religious right to property or office is involved irrespective of whether any fee is attached to the office or not. 43. Reference is also made to this judgment to contend that fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 25 has been violated in this case. The applicant has been elected as Bishop and it is believed by CSI members that ordination of a Bishop is divine and apostolic succession, therefore, is not an office of profit or salary, but divine calling. 44. His fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution has been defeated, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.1.2012 is to be considered to be non est in law. On submission referred to above, it is contended, that prima facie case is made out for grant of interim injunction in favour of plaintiff/applicant. 45. The applications are opposed by the non applicants/defendants. It is submitted, that the applicant has not made any submission with regard to A. Nos. 103 to 107 and 111 of 2012 and his arguments are restricted to A. Nos. 108 to 110 of 2012. 46. A. No. 108 of 2012 is for injunction, restraining respondent Nos. 1 to 15 from interfering in the functioning of the plaintiff/applicant as Bishop. 47. A. No. 109 of 2012 is for injunction, restraining 4th defendant Moderator from enforcing the order of Synod Court dated 15.12.2011. 48. A. No. 110 of 2012 is for injunction, restraining 4th defendant from enforcing the order of the 6th respondent dated 9.1.2012, declaring that the plaintiff ceased to be the Bishop of CSI Coimbatore Diocese and declaring CSI Coimbatore Diocese as a vacant diocese. 49. It is the stand of respondents, that Synod is the highest authority of CSI and head of CSI is Moderator. 49. It is the stand of respondents, that Synod is the highest authority of CSI and head of CSI is Moderator. Whereas each Diocese is headed by a Bishop and assisted by various bodies including the respective Diocesan Council. It is submitted, that the applicant was appointed as Bishop in July, 2000, thereafter, a number of civil and criminal cases have been filed in connection with administration of the Coimbatore CSI Diocese. 50. It is also the case of the respondent nos.1 to 3, that filing of civil cases for recovery monies and criminal cases against the applicant brought disrespect to the CSI as a whole. 51. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in the written argument, that the Synod Executive Committee in its meeting held on 1 and 2.7.2010 unanimously decided to request the applicant to go on sabbatical leave and to provide for administration of the diocese pending action against the plaintiff, in pursuance thereof, applicant applied for sabbatical leave, which was granted. That under Chapter V Rule 12, that Bishop of Diocese remains Bishop of Diocese until he resigns or accepts the charge of another diocese or departs permanently from the diocese or be deprived of the charge by sentence of the Court of the Synod, or be adjudged by the Executive Committee of the Synod to be mentally, physically or otherwise incapable of discharging the duties of his office. A Bishop retires on completion of 65 years of age. 52. It is also contended, that under Chapter V Rule 17, Council of Bishops have the authority to enquire into the complaints and allegations against a Bishop and to take appropriate action. The allegations, which are considered grave by the Council of Bishops, can be referred to a Court of the Synod to be constituted in accordance with Rules 25 & 26 of Chapter XI of the Constitution. This has to be convened at least once a year. 53. It is the stand of the respondents, that it was Council of Bishops, which referred the issue to the Synod Court for appropriate action against the plaintiff. This has to be convened at least once a year. 53. It is the stand of the respondents, that it was Council of Bishops, which referred the issue to the Synod Court for appropriate action against the plaintiff. It is also the stand that then Moderator consulted all the Bishops and decided to constitute the Court of Synod, which was constituted in accordance with Rules 25 of Chapter XI of the Constitution, in which the applicant/plaintiff was found guilty of charges 1, 2 and 4 and the verdict was unanimously passed against the plaintiff/applicant. 54. It was submitted, that a number of criminal cases are pending against the plaintiff/applicant and as on the date of formation of charges, there were 14 criminal cases. The plaintiff/applicant is on bail. The charges against him are of serious in nature. Reference was made to the Charge Nos.5, 8 & 9, which are serious in nature. It is not understood why reference is made to charges, which were admittedly not proved. 55. The proved charges are, that the plaintiff/applicant had directed the Treasurer to transfer the money to his brother’s amounting to Rs. 72,70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only), which is not accounted. 56. Charge No. 2 is that the plaintiff/applicant used his authority as Bishop and facilitated transfer of funds to his brother Murthy and Another, amounting to Rs. 1,11,80,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only), which was also not accounted. 57. The charge No. 4 is that the applicant abused his authority as Bishop along with his brother and collected Rs. 3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) to give appointment to eight teachers. 58. It is contended, that the criminal case registered against the defendants was closed being mistake of fact. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the respondents, that the applicant/plaintiff had lodged the complaint against the present Moderator Devakadaksham, being biased against him, as he contested election against him, whereas the allegation against Bishop Paul Vasanthakumar is solely on the basis of the complaint filed at the Ketti Police Station, which was found to be false. It was further submitted, that the plaintiff/applicant was charge sheeted in four criminal cases and is on bail on those cases. 59. The respondent no.6 has filed a separate written argument. It was further submitted, that the plaintiff/applicant was charge sheeted in four criminal cases and is on bail on those cases. 59. The respondent no.6 has filed a separate written argument. The stand of respondent no.6 is that allegation against him cannot be looked into, as he had acted in his capacity as Moderator. It is contended, that it is a case of the applicant himself, that he has not chosen to contest the case before the Synod Court, by absenting himself. It is the case of respondent no.6, that the proceedings against plaintiff were conducted as contemplated by the Constitution of CSI. The allegations in the application are afterthought, thus not sustainable in law. 60. In the rejoinder argument, it is submitted, that the criminal cases filed against plaintiff/applicant were false. Furthermore, in any case, the cases filed against Bishops of CSI in various Courts as also the FIR/Charge sheets were either stayed or quashed by respective High Courts. The cases filed against the plaintiff/applicant were also either stayed or quashed by the High Court or dropped by the investigating agency and the plaintiff/applicant has also given the details of the cases, which were dropped. 61. On consideration of the matter, I find that, it is admitted by the plaintiff/applicant himself that he was charge sheeted by the Synod Court Diocese, which is the highest authority. The allegations, that the Court was not properly constituted have been specifically denied. The basic argument of the plaintiff/applicant, that defendants against whom criminal case is pending, did not have the right to continue as part of Synod Court, cannot be accepted, firstly for the reason, that mere registration of cases does not take away the right of a person from performing duties of his office. Otherwise also, the alleged criminal case already stands closed as Mistake of Fact. The contention of learned counsel, that he has not been supplied the proceedings, also cannot be a ground to grant injunction in view of admitted fact, that the plaintiff/applicant did not participate in proceedings, on the ground that constitution of Court be changed and thereafter on the ground of illness. Whether absence was bona fide or deliberate is a question of evidence to be seen at the time of trial. 62. Whether absence was bona fide or deliberate is a question of evidence to be seen at the time of trial. 62. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant, that the enquiry has not been held in accordance with the rules and regulations also cannot be gone into at this stage, as allegations have been denied, which will need proof by evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents was right in contending that the plaintiff/applicant was not holding the post, as he was on sabbatical leave. 63. The other allegations with regard to functioning of the CSI Coimbatore Diocese cannot be looked into, as the plaintiff/applicant has not addressed any argument on the other applications filed, but addressed the argument only on question of his removal as Bishop and implementation of order. 64. By way of interim direction, this Court cannot direct reinstatement of a Bishop against whom serious allegations stand proved, and who has been removed by the competent authority. 65. The plaintiff/applicant thus failed to make out a prima facie case. Nor balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff/applicant, as this Court cannot direct the respondents to permit a Bishop against whom serious charges are proved to perform duties against the wishes of respondent no.1, which is the controlling authority. 66. The judgments on which reliance is placed nowhere lays down, that Bishop cannot be removed from office. 67. The constitution provides holding of enquiry and in this case, the charges are proved. It is open to the Synod Court to take action. The plaintiff/applicant has not shown any provision under which the second show cause notice was required to be issued. The constitution also does not have any statutory force of law, as the CSI is unregistered organization governed by its Constitution, which is only contractual in nature. 68. Consequently, finding no force in these applications, all these applications are ordered to be dismissed. No costs. Applications dismissed.