MAR THEMOTHEUS METROPOLITAN Vs. GEORGE DAVIS MOOKKEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first plaintiff in O. S. No. 276 of 1974 of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Trichur is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. O. S. 276 of 1974 is a suit for declaration that the petitioner herein is the duly consecrated Metropolitan of the Church of the East in India (Chaldian Syrian Church) and as such the sole authority to deal with all matters relating to that Church and for other consequential reliefs. They have prayed for a decree declaring that the first plaintiff is the duly consecrated Metropolitan of the Church of the East in lndia and the first defendant has no status as Bishop, Metropolitan or Administrator and for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to vacate the Metropolitan palace and also to hand over to the first plaintiff the Sceptre, Cross, etc., which are the properties of the Church. The suit proceeds on the basis that the first defendant is not a Metropolitan of the Church of the East in India consecrated or appointed by the Patriarch as required by the Cannon Law. There was also no consecration of the first defendant herein by the proper authority and his consecration by the previous Metropolitan Mar Thoma Dharmo is invalid apart from the fact that he had no authority to consecrate a Metropolitan, he was on suspension and as such be had no authority to do anything as Metropolitan. There was a prior suit O. S. 8 of 1965 in regard to the same Church. There the question that arose was whether the suspension by the Patriarch, of one Mar Thoma Dharmo, the previous Metropolitan was valid or not. The Trial Court held that the suspension was valid. The appellate Court held that the suspension was not valid. The matter is now pending in appeal before the Supreme Court. The defendant filed I. A. 1952 of 1974 under S.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of this suit alleging that questions which arise in the present suit had been raised in O. S.8 of 1965, and that matter is now pending final adjudication in the Supreme Court. The petitioner herein resisted the application alleging that the questions involved in the present suit were not directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit.

(2.) It might be noted that there was another suit also O. S. 116 of 1968 in the same Court filed by two members of the Church of the East. That suit as well as the present suit in which the revision arises and the suit now pending adjudication in the Supreme Court had been filed as representative actions on behalf of the members of the Church of the East. In O. S. No. 116 of 1968 the first defendant herein is the defendant The prayer therein is for a decree declaring that the ordination of the defendant as Priest, Bishop and Metropolitan of the Church of the East in India is invalid, void and inoperative, that the defendant is not entitled to function as such in the plaint Church or use any of the properties of the Church and restraining the defendant from functioning in any of the said capacities in the Church or using any properties of the Church. It would appear that this suit had been stayed under S.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on account of the pendency of O. S. 8 of 1965 in appeal before the Supreme Court

(3.) In the application filed by the first respondent in the present suit the Court below has passed an order holding that under S.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure the suit has to be stayed. This order is now impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.