2009 (9) TMI 1032 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Tenure of the Bishop's appointment.
3. Interim reliefs and balance of convenience.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The appellants argued that the suit was not maintainable u/s Order I, Rule 8 of C.P.C. as it was filed against unincorporated bodies. The Court agreed, stating that for a representative suit, the court's permission under Order I Rule 8 of CPC is mandatory. Since no such permission was sought, the suit was not in order and thus not maintainable.

2. Tenure of the Bishop's Appointment:
The primary issue was whether the Bishop's appointment was for a period of 10 years or until he reached the age of 65. The appellants contended that the appointment was restricted to 10 years due to the Bishop's health condition and his own willingness. The Court noted that the Synod, as the supreme governing body, had the authority to make such decisions. The Court found that the Bishop had accepted the 10-year term and enjoyed its benefits, and thus could not now claim a tenure until the age of 65. The Court emphasized that the Synod's decision was final and binding.

3. Interim Reliefs and Balance of Convenience:
The appellants argued that the learned Single Judge hastily made the order without giving them a reasonable opportunity to file their counter. However, the Court found this argument untenable as the appellants had filed a memo stating that their counter in another application could be taken as the counter for this application. The Court also noted that the balance of convenience was with the appellants and that the first respondent had no prima facie case for continuing as Bishop beyond the agreed 10-year term. However, considering the vacancy, the Court permitted the first respondent to continue as caretaker Bishop until a new appointment was made by the competent authority.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The first respondent/plaintiff was permitted to continue as caretaker Bishop of the Madras Diocese until a new appointment was made by the competent authority. The Court made it clear that any observations made would not stand in the way of the Synod making a new appointment.