The petitioner is a third party to the suit, who filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC to permit him to implead as 3rd defendant in the suit filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents. They filed the suit for Declaration, Consequential Injunction and also for Mandatory Injunction. They have filed the suit in representative capacity. In the affidavit the petitioner has affirmed that he is a member in the Church of South India, a Presbyter of the Church and the duty elected secretary of the Church of South India, Madras Diocese; that he has got a direct interest in the said matter of the suit; that since the defendants have been sued in a representative capacity it is just and necessary to implead him as a defendant in the above suit to enable him to defend the suit and that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff.
2. In the counter, the above said allegations are resisted and it is stated that it is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to use this as a tool to delay, protract, drag on and defeat the proceedings, which is in gross abuse of the process of law, especially when the suit is in the final hearing stages of disposal. The petitioner is serving under the first defendant and operating from the same address, who has to report to the 1st defendant on a daily and/or day-to-day basis and cannot act independent of the first defendant, whose interest would amply be covered and secured by the first defendant. If he is impleaded, gross injustice will be caused to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as this will open flood-gates of abuse, as after this, all those lakhs of members of the C.S.I. through out the four Southern States, the thousands of Presbyters and innumerable office bearers will one after another, file applications to implead themselves, without giving or disclosing any justifiable interest and thus successfully block the taking up for trial of the suit and the same is the mala fide motive and intention of the defendants.
3. Learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissed the application by observing that the petitioner had filed the petition in the individual capacity, that C.S.I. Is added as 1st defendant and it is represented by its Bishop and that the petition is not maintainable.
4. Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that since the petitioner has got direct interest in the affairs of the organisation as secretary, it is very much essential to implead him, that C.S.I. Madras Dioceses should have been sued through the secretary alone and putting the name of the Bishop is not sustainable and that inclusion of the petitioner in the suit would enlighten the suit.
5. Per contra, Mr. Bahety, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2/plaintiffs would repel the contention of the petitioner's counsel by stating that the election of the petitioner itself is covered by litigation presently and he could not portray himself as secretary to the Diocese, that there is no necessity to sue the diocese through the secretary since it is an unregistered body and that the presence of the petitioner is not at all material to the conduct of the suit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the Constitution and Bye-Laws of Church of South India Diocese of Madras in which
Article 20 (a) provides that the secretary shall be the person to sue and to be sued in the name and on behalf of the Diocese of Madras. Facing this contention, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would say that the C.S.I. Madras Diocese being an unregistered and unincorporated one, as per the settled principles of law, the Bye-laws need not be strictly followed and the impleadment of the Diocese through the Bishop is more appropriate. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in (1999) 1 M.L.J. 392 [Rev. Noble Gambeeran and others v. Peter P.Ponnan for himself and as representative of members of C.S.I. Christian Community] wherein S.S.Subramani.J. has expressed his view as follows:
"22. ... ... ... According to me, when the church itself is an unincorporated body, it cannot be considered as a legal person. When a separate procedure is provided under O.1, Rule 8, C.P.C., without complying with that provision, no suit could be instituted even if their Bye-laws provide for the same. For that view, I take support from the decision reported in Corporation of Trivandrum v. K. Narayana Pillai, 1968 K.L.T. 285. ... ..."
7. As per the earlier view taken by this Court and also by the High Court of Kerala, I am of the considered opinion that the Bye-laws of an unincorporated body need not be construed or followed strictly and as far as the facts of the present case, suing Diocese through the Bishop is not irrgular nor unlawful.
8. Adverting to the claim of the petitioner for in inclusion in the suit is concerned, it is his main stay that he is having direct interest in the subject matter of the suit. Whatever may be the affairs in the administration and other functions of the Diocese, since the same has been validly represented by the Bishop, there is no need to implead him as a party. The suit is of the year 2005 and the petition has been filed after two years. The affidavit of the petitioner is significantly silent with regard to the factors, that is to say, the further proceedings in the suit would not be profitable to the Diocese if it continuous to be represented by the Bishop and such continuance would not render any boon to all categories of Institutions which are governed by the Diocese. In other words, it can be stated that the affidavit is bereft of particulars as to in what way the petitioner would tune the administration and affairs of the Diocese in a better manner or his inclusion would be advantageous to the beneficiaries of the Diocese. In such circumstances, this Court is at loss to find out, for what reasons he seeks to implead him as a party, while the Diocese is validly represented by the Bishop. There is no allegation in the affidavit that even after filing of the suit, the first defendant has not placed sufficient materials in favour of the Diocese before the Court.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the presence of the petitioner in the suit is not at all material and his claim has to be turned down.
10. In the light of the above said observations, this Court does not find any wrong in the order passed by the Court below, which deserves to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed.
11. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No cost. Connected M.P. is also dismissed.
ggs To The V Assitant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai 104