IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 192 of 2009() --------------------- OS.174/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------- STANLY PONGUVILAYIL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.BARNABAS, RESIDING AT OZHINJAVALAPPU, PADNEKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SMT. V. SETHUKUTTY AMMA RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. REV.BABU JACOB, AGED 40 YEARS, PRESBYTER IN CHARGE, CSI CHRIST CHURCH, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD POST, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. RT.REV.DEVARAJ BENGARA, AGED 62 YEARS, BISHOP, KARNATAKA SOUTHERN DIOCESE, OFFICE AT BALMATTA, MANGALORE. 3. RT.REV.DR.K.G.DANIEL, BISHOP, DIOCESE OF EAST KERALA, MULAVUKOOTTAM, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE MOST REV.DR.GLADSTON, MODERATOR, BISHOP'S HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9/12/2011, THE COURT ON 14/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.192 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 14th December, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 19.12.2008 in O.S.174/08 on the file of Munsiff Court, Hosdurg, which is made on a preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the defendants 1 to 4 in that suit. By the impugned order, the court below held that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was filed by the revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the 4th defendant, which in turn was issued against the order of the 3rd defendant de-authorising the 1st defendant as clergy of CSI Church, Hosdurg. The cause of action for the suit arose wholly within the jurisdiction of the court below. The defendants contended lack of jurisdiction in view of Clause 4 in Chapter XI of Church of South India Constitution, which provides that whenever suit is to be filed against a Diocese or Synod it shall be filed in the courts within whose jurisdiction the Diocese or Synod is situated. The court below accepted the said contention raised by the defendants and found that, that court has no territorial jurisdiction to try C.R.P.192/09 2 the suit and ordered to return the plaint for presenting before the proper court and the plaintiff was given liberty to file an application under Order VII Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code, specifying the court in which he proposes to present the plaint. Against that order, the plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though served, there is no appearance for the respondents. 3. O.S.174/08 is a suit for declaration that the order of the 4th defendant dated 11.4.2008 is null and void and also for a declaration that the order dated 29.3.2008 issued by the third defendant is lawful and binding on all the defendants and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants and their men from exercising ministry of clergy of the CSI Church. The main contention of the defendants is that Munsiff Court, Hosdurg has no jurisdiction, in view of clause 4 in Chapter XI of the Constitution of the Church of South India. The relevant clause reads as follows : C.R.P.192/09 3 “Subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all members of the Church also agree that whenever any legal proceedings are to be instituted and in which the officers of the Diocese or Synod are made parties, such suit shall be instituted only in such Courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of the Diocese or of the Synod and/or its Secretariat at that time situated.” 4. The office of the third defendant is situated within the jurisdiction of the courts at Kottayam and the office of the 4th defendant is situated within the jurisdiction of the courts at Thiruvananthapuram. The office of the second defendant is situated within the jurisdiction of the courts at Mangalore. The first defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of the courts at Hosdurg. Applying the principles of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, four different courts have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. 5. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the first defendant has been recently deputed by the second defendant as Presbyter in charge of C.S.I. Church, Hosdurg. There were serious allegations against the first defendant. Thereafter, on enquiry, the parental Diocese, the Diocese of East Kerala held C.R.P.192/09 4 their executive committee on 10.3.2008 and decided to de- authorise the first defendant as clergy of the Church of South India. Since the order was passed by the third defendant, the first defendant has no authority to act as a clergy. Meanwhile, the 4th defendant issued an interim order dated 11.4.2008 permitting the first defendant to continue in the Diocese. The order of the 4th defendant permitting the first defendant to act as a clergy of the Church is in violation of the Constitution of the C.S.I. Church. So, the suit is one for a declaration that the order of the 4th defendant dated 11.4.2008 is null and void and also for a declaration that the order dated 29.3.2008 issued by the third defendant is lawful and binding on all the defendants. 6. It is well settled that it is not open to the parties by agreement to confer jurisdiction on a court which it does not possess under the Code. But where two courts or more have under the Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy. Such an agreement does not C.R.P.192/09 5 contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act. 7. In the present case, there is no express clause conferring jurisdiction to a particular court alone. The plaintiff is residing within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg and the first respondent is also residing within the jurisdiction of that court. Directing the plaintiff to file suit before courts at Mangalore or Kottayam or Thiruvananthapuram would cause grave prejudice and hardship to the plaintiff and therefore, the order in O.S.174/08 to return the plaint is not justified. 8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order to return the plaint in O.S.174/08 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg is set aside and the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.