J THANGARAJ Vs. CHRIST LUTHERAN CENTENARY CHURCH KRISHNAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE gist and kernel of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: THE plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the suit in O.S.No.192 of 2008 seeking the following reliefs: - declaring that plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the legally elected office bearers of the first plaintiff and are entitled to administer and "take decision makers regarding pastors" at first plaintiff Church. - granting injunction restraining the defendants and their men from indulging in any unlawful or unauthorized Administration acts in the suit property belonging to the first plaintiff's Church. - Granting permanent injunction restraining the 8th and 9th defendant or any Alien Pastor without authorization from conducting any kind of service or any prayer at the first plaintiff's Church. THEy also filed I.A.No,562 of 2008 seeking permanent injunction so as to restrain the 8th and 9th defendants or any Alien Pastor without authorization from conducting any kind of service or any prayer at the first plaintiff's Church till the disposal of the suit. While so, the defendants had entered appearance and filed I.A.No.1093 of 2008 challenging the maintainability of the suit on various grounds. It appears the lower Court, according to the revision petitioners had not taken up the I.A.No.1093 of 2008 and dealt with the preliminary points/ objections raised by the defendants relating to the maintainability of the suit itself. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the lower Court, the revision petitioners/defendants has filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on various grounds.

(3.) AT this juncture, I would like to point out that in this revision, this Court is not expected to decide as to whether the suit has been properly instituted or not or whether the plaintiffs were justified in filing the suit. What are all, to be decided in this civil revision petition is as to whether the lower Court was justified in keeping the application filed by the defendants in I.A.No.1093 of 2008, as such. I am of the considered opinion that the lower court has to consider the I.A.No.1093 of 2008 filed by the defendants along with the I.A.Nos.562 and 563 of 2008 and pass a common order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.