1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER 2011 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA O.A. No.222 of 2011 in C.S. No.161 of 2011 S.Naveen Raj, No.5, N.N.Garden Street, 5th Cross Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021. ... Applicant/Plaintiff -Versus- 1. The Church of South India, Synod rep. by its Moderator, 5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. 2. The CSI Diocese of Madras, rep. by its Bishop Rt.Devasaghayam, 226, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600 086. 3. Rev. Stanley Kirubakaran, The Chairman, C.S.I.Church Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021. 4. Rev.E.W.Christopher, The Former Chairman, C.S.I.Church Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021. 5. C.S.I.Church Old Washermenpet, rep. by its Chairman, Rev. Samuel Kirubakaran, Chennai-600 021. 6. Mr.R.Anbarasan, S/o.M.Rivington Jebaraj, No.19, Rettaikuli Lane, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7. Mr.A.Selvin, S/o.Abraham, Old No.34/2, New No.83, Thandavaraya Gramani Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. 8. Mr.D.Michael Ramesh Anand, S/o.K.David, No.1326, Y Block, V.O.C.Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. 9. Mr.T.Swamydoss Jayakumar, S/o.P.Thomas, No.15, Varadaraja Perumal Street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai-600 021. 10. Mr.A.Charles Rajan Prabhu, S/o.P.T.Azharia, No.H5-13, T.N.H.B.Colony, Thiruvallur Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. 11. Mr.M.Michael Jackson, S/o.D.Mark Selvaraj, No.12A, Grace Garden, 1st Lane, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013. 12. Mr.S.Daniel Kirubaharan Joshua, S/o.K.Stephen, No.25/1A, Somu Street, 5th Lane, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013. 13. Mr.D.Joseph, S/o.Dharmaraj, No.3/5, Grace Garden, 2nd Lane, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013. 14. Mr.D.Prince, S/o.Duraipzhalam, No.17/8, Rajagopal Street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai-600 021. 15. Mrs.R.Mary Christinal, No.12/24, 1st Street, Tondiar Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. 16. Mrs.C.Grace Chandrasekaran, CSI Church, Old Washermanpet, Chennai-600 021. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 17. Mr.D.Joyce Paripoornam, 18. Y.Jebi Poongothai, 17 & 18 are at No.246, Solaiyappan Street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai-600 021. ... Respondents/Defendants Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant order of interim injunction, restraining the respondents 6 to 18, their men, agents, servants or representatives from in any manner interfering with the functioning or day to day administration of the 5th respondent Church claiming to be elected members on the basis of the elections dated 27.02.2011, pending disposal of the suit. This Original Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: The applicant prays for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent nos. 6 to 18, their men, agents, servants or representatives from in any manner interfering with the functioning or day to day administration of the respondent no.5, by claiming to be elected members on the basis of the elections held on 27.02.2011, pending the disposal of the suit. 2. The applicant has filed a suit to challenge the pastorate elections, for the CSI Church Old Washermenpet, Chennai, held on 27.02.2011 to be null and void, and contrary to constitution of Church of South India. 3. It is not in dispute that the applicant / plaintiff was one of the candidates in the election and was defeated. In view of the fact that the respondent nos. 6 to 12 are elected members in the election in which the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 applicant / plaintiff also participated, it cannot be said that the plaintiff / applicant has prima facie case to restrain the elected members from performing their duties nor the applicant is likely to suffer any irreparable loss or injury if the injunction is not granted. The balance of convenience is also not in favour of the applicant. 4. It is now well settled that the elected representatives should be allowed to function and perform their duties without any judicial interference, unless very strong case is made out, which is apparent on face of record. In this case, the locus standi of applicant to challenge the election itself is in doubt, as he admittedly took a chance to be elected and it is only after having been defeated that he has chosen to challenge the election. 5. For the reasons stated above, finding no merits in this original application, it is ordered to be dismissed. 6. In view of the serious allegations levelled against the respondents, the learned Master is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit, and complete the recording of evidence and other proceedings expeditiously. No costs. Sd/-V.K.S.J 12.10.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2011. R.s/23.11.2011 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/