JUDGMENT 1. The defendants 1 to 7, 9 and 10 in O.S.No.6737 of 2012 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, are the revision petitioners. 2. The first respondent herein filed the suit against the revision petitioners and others for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and also filed I.A.No.16303 of 2012 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for the grant of ad-interim injunction and ad-interim injunction was granted on 01.11.2012 and the same was challenged in CRP(PD) No.4399 of 2012 by the revision petitioners herein. 3. In CRP(PD)No.4580 of 2012, the revision petitioners prayed for striking off the plaint on the ground of re-litigation and abuse of process of court. 4. Mr. V.Prakash, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the suit filed by the first respondent and the suit filed by the first respondent is a clear abuse of process of court and it amounts to re-litigation and therefore, the plaint in O.S.No.6737 of 2012 is liable to be struck off from the file. 5. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the brother of the plaintiff, by name Dr. Sudhakar filed a suit in O.S.No.5172 of 2012 against the defendants 1 to 8 and 10 in O.S.No.6737 of 2010 and also against other persons for the very same relief and obtained an order ad-interim injunction and the same was suspended on 18.08.2012 by this court and thereafter, the election was held on 19.08.2012 and CRP(PD)No.3235 of 2012 filed by the defendants in O.S.No.5172 of 2012 was allowed and the election results were also published and the officers and others were installed on 19.10.2012 and thereafter, the suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012 has been filed by the first respondent for the same relief. The learned Senior counsel, therefore, submitted that it is a clear case of abuse of process of court and it is also a case of re-litigation, which cannot be entertained and encouraged and relied upon the judgment rendered by me reported in 2011(1)MWN (Civil) 140, in the case of Kanniga vs. S.Shankar and 1999-II- MLJ 277, in the case of Moderator, Church of South India, C.S.I. Centre, Chennai and others vs. J.S. Kingsley, for himself and on behalf of members of the C.S.I. Vellore Diocese, Vellore and others, in support of his contention. 6. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashraf Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the suit filed in O.S.No.5712 of 2012 has nothing to do with the present suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012 filed by the first respondent and the scope of both the suits are entirely different and in the present suit, the first respondent has sought for declaration that the decisions taken and the resolutions passed by the 5th defendant on 3rd and 4th November 2011 in respect of XXI Biennial Diocesan Council, namely the 6th defendant is illegal and ultra virus and the appointment of the administrator by the defendants 1 to 5 and conferring the powers by the defendants 1 to 5 on the Administrative Committee and authorization given on 17.01.2012 to convene XXI Biennial Diocesan Council are illegal and unconstitutional and also to declare the order of the defendants 1, 2 to 4, dated 12.10.2012 revising the Administrative Committee as illegal and to declare the entire proceedings of the XXI Biennial Diocesan Council held between 18th and 21st October 2012 as illegal and for mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 10 from appointing or selecting members or constituting any of the Boards of Management or Management Committees in the Karnataka Central Diocese and therefore, the suit filed by the first respondent in O.S.No.6732 of 2012 is maintainable before the City Civil Court, Chennai, as the reliefs are sought for against the defendants 1 to 4, who are residing and are having office within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that in O.S.No.5172 of 2012, the relief sought for was to declare that all the decisions taken by the Chief Election Officer, by name Mr. Charles Prabhakar, in pursuance of his illegal appointment is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 12 in that suit from convening, constituting and conducting any proceedings of the XXI Diocesan Council scheduled to be held between 18th and 20th August 2012 and therefore, it cannot be stated that the present suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012 was filed for the same relief and it amounts to re-litigation. 8. 8. He further submitted that the pleadings are different, the prayers are different in both the cases and therefore, the plaint cannot be struck off for the reasons submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners. 9. Mr. V.Prakash, the learned Senior counsel further submitted that the suit filed by the first respondent has also become infructuous as the earlier Biennial Election was held and the officers were installed on 19.10.2012 and therefore, the reliefs 1 to 5 became infructuous and the main allegations in the plaint in O.S.No.6737 of 2012 are focused against the defendants 6 to 10 and to bring the suit within jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants 1 to 5 were added in that suit and therefore, the suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012 is liable to be struck off from the file. 10. The objections raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners was that the brother of the first respondent filed O.S.No.5172 of 2012 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 12 therein from conducting, convening or constituting the XXI Biennial Diocesan Council scheduled to be held between 18th and 20th August 2012 and in the present suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012, the same relief was couched in a different manner and therefore, it is a case of re-litigation and clear abuse of process of court. 11. I have gone through the allegations made in the plaints O.S.No.5172 of 2012 and O.S.No.6737 of 2012 and the prayers in those two suits and in my opinion, it cannot be stated that the present suit in O.S.No.6737 of 2012 amounts to re-litigation, having regard to the suit filed by the brother of the first respondent in O.S.No.5172 of 2012. 12. As stated supra, in O.S.No.6737 of 2012, the first respondent sought for declaration against the defendants 1 to 5 having office in Chennai and the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction are sought for consequent to the prayer of declaration prayed in that suit. 13. Further, in O.S.No.5172 of 2012, the declaration sought for was in respect of the decisions taken by the Chief Election Officer, Mr. 13. Further, in O.S.No.5172 of 2012, the declaration sought for was in respect of the decisions taken by the Chief Election Officer, Mr. Charles Prabhakar and for injunction restraining the defendants in that suit from convening, conducting and proceedings of the XXI Diocesan Council scheduled to be held between 18th and 20th August 2012 and in O.S.No.6737 of 2012, the declaration sought for is in respect of the proceedings of the Diocesan Council in the XXI Biennial Election took place between 18th and 20th August 2012 as illegal and null and void. Therefore, having regard to the prayer in both the suits, it cannot be stated that the present suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012 is a case of re-litigation and it amounts to abuse of process of court. 14. As stated supra, both the suits are filed by two different persons and though, they happen to be brothers and having regard to the scope of two suits, it cannot be stated that the present suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012 is a clear abuse of process of court or amounts to re-litigation. 15. In the judgment reported in 2011(1) MNW(Civil) 149 [Kanniga vs. S.Shankar], having regard to the facts of that case, I held that the court should not be used to entertain the vexatious suit and when it is a clear case of re-litigation, the same has to be struck down. Similarly, in the judgment reported in 1999-II-MLJ 277 [Moderator, Church of South India, C.S.I. Centre, Chennai and others vs. J.S. Kingsley, for himself and on behalf of members of the C.S.I., Vellore Diocese, Vellore and others, the same principle has been reiterated. 16. Further, the contention of the learned Senior counsel is that the suit has become infructuous as the election had taken place, cannot be considered at this stage and the same can be decided only by the trial court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners. Hence, the CRP (PD)No.4580 of 2012 is dismissed. 17. In CRP(PD)No.4399 of 2012, the revision petitioners challenged the order of ad-interim injunction on the ground that it was passed without any regard to the provision of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the learned Judge has not applied his mind. 18. Hence, the CRP (PD)No.4580 of 2012 is dismissed. 17. In CRP(PD)No.4399 of 2012, the revision petitioners challenged the order of ad-interim injunction on the ground that it was passed without any regard to the provision of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the learned Judge has not applied his mind. 18. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that though ordinarily a revision will not lie against the ad-interim injunction, having regard to the nature of the order passed by the court below without stating, that injury would be caused, if injunction was not granted to the plaintiff in that suit and without forming any opinion about the balance of convenience or the satisfaction of the prima facie case, the court has passed the order of ad-interim injunction, which is against the provisions Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the judgments of our High court in various cases and hence, the order of ad-interim temporary injunction passed in I.A.No.16303 and in O.S.No.6737 of 2012 is liable to be set aside. 19. On the other hand, Mr. Ashraf Khan, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the learned Judge after considering the documents, has passed a detailed order and therefore, the order cannot be challenged in the revision and the remedy available to the revision petitioners is to file an application, either to vacate the order of injunction or to file an appeal against the order of ad-interim injunction and therefore, the revision CRP(PD)No.4399 of 2012 is not maintainable. 20. According to me, having regard to the order passed by the court below, while granting ad-interim injunction, it cannot be stated that the court below has not applied its mind and passed a cryptic order. 21. A perusal of the order passed by the court below makes it clear that the court below has gone through the documents and the allegations made in respect of those documents by the plaintiff and after considering all these factors, came to the conclusion that serious allegations in respect of financial mismanagement, mal-administration and corrupt practices against the defendants are made and the defendants are hand in glow with each other and the revision petitioner, namely the first respondent may not get any remedy and granted an order of ad-interim injunction. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court has not passed a cryptic order and the court below has applied its mind and passed a detailed order for grant of ad-interim injunction and therefore, the same cannot be challenged, without filing an application to vacate the injunction or by filing an appeal before the appellate court under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and the same cannot be challenged in revision. 22. Further, in the judgment reported in (2012)6 SCC 792 in the case of Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Limited Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1992)1 SCC 719 , in the case of Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "5....Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the court would result in 'irreparable injury' to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely, one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages." 23. Further, while granting ad-interim injunction, the court has to consider:- (i) Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case; (ii) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss or injury, if an order of injunction is not passed. 24. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal, the Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme court while he was the Chief Justice of this court has written an article explaining the duty of the courts in disposing of the Interlocutory application, wherein the Hon'ble Judge has explained the words' prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, as follows:- "(i) Prima Facie case:- Prima facie case means the plaintiff must, by making positive averments, assert that he has a strong case and a legal right to the property in suit, which has to be preserved and protected. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove by evidence. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove by evidence. But, at least he must show that he has a strong prima facie case and there is every chance of his success in the case. Existence of prima facie case is sine qua non for the issuance of an interim injunction, provided the two other conditions namely, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are satisfied. Prima facie case does not mean prima facie title. Prima facie case exists whenever there are issues which need trial and adjudication. Necessary criteria for establishing a prima facie case is that the plaintiff has to show that he has bona fidely raised a substantial question which needs to be adjudicated at the trial of the suit. (ii) Balance of Convenience At the same time, mere existence of prima facie case is not sufficient for the grant of injunction. The plaintiff must also show that the balance of convenience lies in his favour in grant of injunction. The court must see that there is a bona fide contest between the parties, and then, in which side the balance of convenience lies, in the event of success, if injunction is not issued. Injunction cannot be granted if balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. In a nutshell, it is clear that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of injunction has to prove that he had made out a prima facie case to go for trial and also the balance of convenience is in his favour. However, when the party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial then the question of considering the balance of convenience does not arise. (iii) Irreparable Injury Another important ingredient is the proof of irreparable injury. A party who seeks the aid of the Court must also satisfy the court that its interference is necessary to protect him from the irreparable injury till the legal right claimed by him in the suit is established. The term 'irreparable injury' means such injury, which is a material one and could not be adequately remedied or compensated in terms of money or damages. There are, however, certain instances where the injury although can be compensated by damages, yet if such injury totally destroys the subject matter of the suit, then that can be treated as irreparable injury. The term 'irreparable injury' means such injury, which is a material one and could not be adequately remedied or compensated in terms of money or damages. There are, however, certain instances where the injury although can be compensated by damages, yet if such injury totally destroys the subject matter of the suit, then that can be treated as irreparable injury. From the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that before an order of temporary or interim injunction is passed a party has to prove the existence of the above three important ingredients. But ultimately it is for the court to decide as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to protect the property, which is the subject matter of the suit from being damaged. The right of a party with regard to the property could be secured by issuing prohibitory order." 25. While granting ad-interim injunction, the court below has to apply its mind to find out whether prima facie case has been made out and whether balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and whether irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff, if injunction is not granted and if there are indicators in the order from which one cane infer that the court below has considered all these aspects and granted ad-interim injunction, the same cannot be challenged in revision, even though there is no express words in that order that irreparable injury would be caused, if injunction is not granted. What is required under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is, the court shall record the reasons and once the reasons are stated for the grant of ad-interim injunction, even though there is no express word that if injunction is not granted, the same would be defeated by delay that will not make the order questionable in a revision. 26. According to me, Order 39 Rule 3 CPC only contemplates the reasons to be recorded for the grant of injunction and in this case, the court below has considered the documents and discussed those documents and came to the conclusion that prima facie case was made out and therefore, the same cannot be challenged in revision. 27. Hence, CRP(PD)No.4399 of 2012 is also dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.