← Library
Madras High CourtOA/511/2015dismissed

K. Johnson David v. Church Of South India

2016-08-12Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh25 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2016 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH O.A.NOS.511 & 512 OF 2015 IN C.S.NO.396 OF 2015 & O.A.NO.30 OF 2016 & A.NOS.342 TO 344 OF 2016 IN CS.NO.20 OF 2016 O.A.NOS.511 & 512 OF 2015 IN C.S.NO.396 OF 2015 1.K.Johnson David S/o.D.Koilmani 33, Sethupathai Road, Tuticorin 628 003.

2.J.Paul Nixon S/o.V.Jobitharaj 39, Church Street, Tuticorin 628003 (For themselves and as representatives of Congregation Members of Church of South India Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese Tuticorin) ... Applicant/Plaintiff (in both original applications) -Versus1.Church of South India having office at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014 Rep. by the Moderator Most Rev.Dr.G.Dyvasiravadam S/o.Davamani having office as stated above

2.Rev.Bishop Thomas Ooman, S/o.not know to the Plaintiffs Deputy Moderator of Church of South India having office at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.

3.Dr.Ratnakar Sadanandam S/o.Not known to the Plaintiffs The General Secretary Church of South India having office at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014 For themselves and as representatives of Synod Church of South India having office as state above.

.. Respondents/Defendants (in both original applications) O.A.No.511 of 2015:- Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from implementing and giving effect to the newly introduced bye-laws pertaining to Rule 7 under the headings 1."Procedure for the election of the Moderator 2."Procedure for the election of the Deputy Moderator" 3.Procedure for the election of the General Secretary and the Treasurer" 4.the "Procedure for election of Treasurer of diocese" and 5.in Rule 20 under the heading "Honorary Presbyters" pending disposal of the suit. O.A.No.512 of 2015:- Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from effectuating the proposed amendments of constitution of CSI in regard to Chapter V

Rule 12 (a) extending the retirement age for the Bishops form 65 to 67 similarly Chapter V Rule 26 seeking to extend the age of retirement for Presbyter to 67 years, Chapter VII Rule 6 & 12, Chapter IX Rule 3, Chapter IX Rule 7, Chapter IX Rule 20 in its special Synod meeting held on 08/09th April 2015 at Chennai pending disposal of the suit. O.A.NO.30 OF 2016 & A.NOS.342 TO 344 OF 2016 IN CS.NO.20 OF 2016 1.Dr.R.Jayakaran Isaac S/o.I.B.Rajendran 11/1,Church Colony Virudhampet Vellore Tamilnadu-632 006.

2.S.Armstrong S/o.Swamikannu Gengapuram Devanoor Post Gingee Taluk,Tamil Nadu 3.Mr.P.Amalraj S/o.Mr.Pushpanathan D.No.20,2nd Street CMC Colony,Sathvcachari Vellore 632 009.

On behalf of themselves and members of the Church of South India.

..Plaintiffs/Applicants -Vs1.The Church of south India Synod Rep.by its Moderator Most Rev.Dr.G.Dyvasiravadam No.5,White's Road Royapettah Chennai-600 014

2.The Most Rev.Dr.G.Dyvasirvatham The Moderator Church of south India synod No.5,White's Road Royapettah Chennai-600 014 3.Rt.Rev.Thomas K.Oomen Deputy Moderator Church of south India synod No.5,White's Road Royapettah Chennai-600 014 4.Rev.Dr.D.R.Sadananda General Secretary CSI Synod NO.5,White's Road Royapettah Chennai-600 014 5.Adv.C.Robert Bruce Treasurer CSI Synod No.5 White's Road Royapettah Chennai-600 014 ...Defendants/Respondents O.A.No.30 of 2016:- Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant Interim Injunction restraining the Respondents, their men, agents, servants, representatives, committees, or any person claiming through them or under them from taking any major decisions whatsoever affecting the CSI other than day to day business, pending disposal of the Suit.

A.NO.342 OF 2016 Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Permit the Applicants to sue the Defendants in a

representative capacity on behalf of themselves and all members of CSI.

A.NO.343 OF 2016 Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant Interim Direction appointing any retired judge of this Hon'ble court as a judge commissioner to convene the XXXV meeting of the CSI Synod and conduct elections to the posts of Office bearers and Executive committee of the Synod with the representatives of the Diocesan council already elected in the various Diocese, as expeditiously as possible.

A.NO.344 OF 2016 Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant Interim Direction directing the 2nd Respondent to issue a mandate to such applicable Dioceses of the Church of South India in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Church of South India for conduct of Bishopric elections in respect of Bishops elected/appointed on the basis of unamended constitution,pending disposal of the suit. These original applications along with application coming on this day before this court for hearing court made the following order:

C.S.No.396 of 2015 has been filed by the plaintiffs on their own behalf and also claiming to be the representatives of the Congregation Members of Church of South India, Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese, Tuticorin, inter

alia seeking the following relief's:

(a)Declaring that the proposed constitutional amendments to the Constitution of CSI amending, introducing and altering of Chapter V Rule 12(a) extending the retirement age for the Bishops form 65 to 67 similarly Chapter V Rule 26 seeking to extend the age of retirement for Presbyter to 67 years, Chapter VII Rule 6 & 12, Chapter IX Rule 3, Chapter IX Rule 7, Chapter IX Rule 20 are violative, ultra wires, unreasonable and illegal vis-a-vis the provisions of Constitution of CSI.

(b)Consequently pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the proposed Constitutional amendments.

(c)Declaring the newly introduced bye-laws pertaining to Rule 7 under the headings 1.

"procedure for the election of the Moderator

2. "Procedure for the election of the Deputy Moderator" 3."Procedure for the election of the General Secretary and the Treasurer" 4.

The "Procedure for election of Treasurer of Diocese" and 5. In Rule 20 under the heading "Honarary Presbyters" are violative, ultra wires, unreasonable and illegal vis-a-vis the provisions of Constitution of CSI.

(d) Consequently pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from implementing and giving effect to the said

bye-laws.

(e) Directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the costs of the suit and (f) For such other relief or relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2.

Pending the suit in C.S.No.396 of 2015, Application No.511 of 2015 has been filed seeking to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from implementing and giving effect to the newly introduced bye-laws pertaining to Rule 7 under the headings

1. "Procedure for the election of the the Moderator 2. "Procedure for the election of the Deputy Moderator" 3."Procedure for the election of the General Secretary and the Treasurer" 4. The "Procedure for election of Treasurer of Diocese" and 5. In Rule 20 under the heading "Honarary Presbyters", pending disposal of the suit. 3.

Pending the suit in C.S.No.396 of 2015, Application No.512 of 2015 has been filed seeking to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from effectuating the proposed amendments of Constitution of CSI in regard to Chapter V Rule 12(a) extending the retirement age for the Bishops from 65 to 67

similarly Chapter V Rule 26 seeking to extend the age of retirement for Presbyter to 67 years, Chapter VII Rule 6 & 12, Chapter IX Rule 3, Chapter IX Rule 7, Chapter IX Rule 20 in its special Synod meeting held on 08/09th April, 2015 at Chennai pending disposal of the suit.

4. C.S.No.20 of 2016 is filed by the plaintiffs being a Member of Church of South India, Vellore Diocese qua the first plaintiff and the Members of Diocesan Council of Church of South India Diocese, Vellore, qua the plaintiffs 2 and 3 inter alia seeking the following reliefs: (a) Declaring that the manedments to the Constitution of the Church of South India claimed to be effected on 16.11.2015 including the amendments touching upon the age of retirement of Bishops and upon the term of any elected or appointed Office Bearers of the Synod have prospective Operation and cannot apply to such bodies and persons who have been elected or nominated before the Amendments were effect;

(b) Declaring that the term of the Executive Committee and elected Office bearers of the Synod of Chuch of South India, elected at the XXXIV Session of the CSI Synod lapses on 13th January 2016 and cannot be extended beyond the 2 year

period;

(c)Permanent injunction restraining the defendnats their representatives, servants, men, agents, assings, committees and/or any person claiming through them or under them from in any manner permitting the existing office bearers and committee to continue in office beyond 13th January 2016;

(d) costs of the suit; and (e) Such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thereby render justice.

5. A.No.30 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016 has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i)Interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants, representatives, Committees, or any person claiming through them or under them from taking any major decisions whatsoever affecting the CSI other than day to day business, pending disposal of the Suit.

(ii)Interim Direction directing the 2nd respondent to issue a mandate to such applicable Dioceses of the Church of South India in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Church of South India for conduct of Bishopric elections

in respect of Bishops elected/appointed on the basis of unamended constitution, pending disposal of the suit;

(iii) Interim direction appointing any retired Judge of this Hon'ble Court as a Judge Commissioner to Convene the XXXV meeting of the CSI Synod and conduct elections to the posts of Office bearers and Executive committee of the Synod with the representatives of the Diocesan Council already elected in the various Diocese, as expeditiously as possible.

6. Application No.342 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016 has been filed seeking permission to the applicants to sue the defendants in a representative capacity on behalf of themselves and all members of CSI.

7. Application No.343 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016 has been filed seeking an interim direction to appoint any retired Judge of this Court as a Judge Commissioner to Convene the XXXV meeting of the CSI Synod and to conduct elections to the posts of Office bearers and Executive committee of the Synod with the representatives of the Diocesan Council.

8. Application No.344 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016 has been filed seeking an interim direction directing the second respondent to issue a mandate to such applicable Dioceses of the Church of South India in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Church of South India for conduct of Bishopric elections in respect of Bishops elected/appointed on the basis of unamended constitution, pending disposal of the suit;

9. Impleading applications have been filed by various parties to implead themselves in the pending proceedings. As the said applications were not opposed, accordingly, they were already ordered.

10. Though necessary amendments were not carried out, this Court has permitted the parties to address, particularly, when there is no objection for such a course.

11. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the applicants in O.A.Nos. 511 and 512 of 2015 in C.S.No.396 of 2015, Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam for M/s BFS legal, learned counsel for applicants 1 to 3 in O.A.No.30 of 2016 and A.Nos.342 to 344 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016 and Mr.V.Stanley

Rajasingh, Party in person for the fourth applicant in O.A.No.30 of 2016 and A.Nos.342 to 344 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016 and Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Adrian D.Rozario, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 in O.A.Nos.511 and 512 of 2015 in C.S.No.396 of 2015 and Respondents 1 to 5 in O.A.No.30 of 2016 in A.Nos.342 to 344 of 2016 in C.S.No. 20 of 2016 and Mr.A.R.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the impleaded defendants 6 to 10 in C.S.No.20 of 2016 and Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail, learned counsel for the impleaded defendants 11 to 13 in C.S.No.20 of 2016. learned counsel appearing for the parties.

12. Before going into the issues involved, the background facts and the provisions governing them are to be discussed.

12.1. The Church of the South India was inaugurated in St. George's Cathedral at Madras on 27.09.1947. It is a Union of four different traditions. The union incorporated a Constitution which includes "governing principles" of the Church. The Constitution deals with the duties, powers and functioning of various authorities. There are 22 Dioceses, covering four southern States. The Synod is the representative body. There are four office bearers, viz., Moderator, Deputy Moderator, the General Secretary and the

Treasurer. They are elected by the process involving ballot.

The posts of the Moderator and the Deputy Moderator are to be filled up from the posts of Bishop. The Members of the Synod are to be elected by each of the 22 Diocese. Each of the Diocese will send 17 persons, of which six would be the clergy and 10 members are to be the Moderator of the Synod.

12.2. Chapter VIII of the Constitution speaks about Diocesan Councils. The Church of South India consists of dioceses with specified geographical boundaries. All the Pastorates of a particular geographical area with all institutions administered by the Church within that area form a diocese under the control of the Bishop being administered through a Diocesan Council. Diocesan Council consist of the Bishop of the diocese and the assistant Bishop, if any. The Presbyters and lay representatives are the nominated members. The term of the Diocesan Council was to be determined by the said Council. 12.3.The Synod is the highest representative body of the Church of South India. It is the supreme governing legislative body. The members of the Synod would include all Diocesan Bishops, Assistant Bishops, if any, serving

Bishops of the Synod, General Secretary and the Treasurer, the President and the General Secretary of the Women's Fellowship and two members of the Order of Sisters nominated by the Order Committee, Presbyters and lay persons and additional members, as mandated under Section 79.

12.4. The ordinary meeting of the Synod has been dealt with in Clause 20 of Chapter IX, which reads as follows: "20. An Ordinary meeting of the Synod shall be held once in every two years at such time and place as the Executive Committee may determine. Special meetings of the Synod may also be summoned by the Executive Committee." 12.5. Clause 27 speaks about the quorum for the meeting, which is as under:

"27. The quorum for a meeting of the Synod shall be one-third of the total membership of whom not less than two-thirds shall be lay persons."

12.6. The Constitution was sought to be amended pursuant to the communication sent by the Synod to all the Bishops of the Church of South India dated 14.04.2015. The relevant amendments, which are under challenge, are the

subject matter of the suit in C.S.No.396 of 2015, which reads as under:

Chapter V Rule 12(2):

EXISTING PROPOSED 12(a) Duration of Appointment- The Bishop of a Diocese shall remain Bishop of that Diocese until he resign, or accept the charge of another Diocese, or depart permanently from the Diocese or be deprived of his charge by sentence of the Court of the Synod, or be adjudged by the Executive Committee of the Synod to be mentally, physically or otherwise incapable of discharging the duties of his office.

A Bishop shall retire on completion of his 65th year of age.

12(a) Duration of Appointment- The Bishop of a Diocese shall remain Bishop of that Diocese until he resign, or accept the charge of another Diocese, or depart permanently from the Diocese or be deprived of his charge by sentence of the Court of the Synod, or be adjudged by the Executive Committee of the Synod to be mentally, physically or otherwise incapable of discharging the duties of his office.

A Bishop shall retire on completion of his 67th year of age.

Chapter V Rule 26:

EXISTING PROPOSED

26. ADD A Presbyter shall retire on the completion of 67 years of age.

Chapter VII Rule 6,12:

EXISTING PROPOSED 6.ADD The term of the Pastorate Committee shall be Three years.

EXISTING PROPOSED

12. ADD The term of such circles, districts, or other groups of pastorates shall also be three years.

Chapter IX Rule 3:

EXISTING PROPOSED

3. Every Diocesan Council shall hold a fresh election of ministerial and lay representatives of the Diocese in the Synod for each ordinary meeting of the Synod.

3. Every Diocesan Council shall hold a fresh election of ministerial and lay representatives of the Diocese in the Synod for each ordinary meeting of the Synod.

In case the council has not elected fresh representatives, the existing representatives shall represent the Diocese in the Synod for one more term.

-- DELETE Chapter IX Rule 7:

varies from the Synod Circular 7, 7b.

EXISTING PROPOSED

7. All the Officers shall be elected by ballot of the Synod, the Moderator and the Deputy Moderator being elected from among the diocesan Bishops of the Church.

7. The Moderator and Deputy Moderator shall be elected by the ballot of the Synod, from among the diocesan Bishops of the Church. The General Secretary and the Treasurer shall be elected by the ballot of the Synod.

Chapter IX-Rule 20:

EXISTING PROPOSED

20. An ordinary meeting of the Synod shall be held once in every two years at such time and place as the Executive Committee may determine. Special meetings of the Synod may also be summoned by the Executive Committee.

20. An ordinary meeting of the Synod shall be held once in every three years at such time and place as the Executive Committee may determine. Special meetings of the Synod may also be summoned by the Executive Committee.

12.7. Similarly a challenge is made to the bye-laws of the Constitution. Thus, in the suit in C.S.No.396 of 2015, the amendment to the Constitution of the bye-laws made thereafter are put into challenge. In C.S.No.20 of 2016, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that the amendments are prospective and therefore, the same has to be applied from the ensuing election and not to the present office bearers.

12.8.

Under Chapter XIII, for making different alteration and addition in the Constitution of the Church of South India, other than the one the governing principles of the Church, a proposal by way of resolution before the Synod, has to be passed by two-third majority after following the procedure laid, which in turn, to be further ratified by not less than two-thirds of the

Diocesan Councils of the Church. Clause 3 deals with power of the Executive Committee of the Synod to frame bye-laws, which would be subject to the approval of the Synod.

12.9. It is not disputed that subsequently the amendments have been carried out by following the procedure and so is the case qua bye-laws. Suit in C.S.No.396 of 2015 has been filed prior to the amendments coming into force of the bye-laws. It is also to be seen that earlier, very same challenge was made before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, State of Andhra Pradesh in O.S.No.5 of 2015. The interim application in I.A.No.340 of 2015 in O.S.No.5 of 2015 was closed by recording an undertaking of the respondent that Chapter XIII which speak about the procedural compliance would to be followed.

13. Submission of the Applicants:

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants in O.A.Nos.511 and 512 of 2015 in C.S.No.396 of 2015 submits that the amendments are contrary to the governing principles. Therefore, the procedure contemplated in Clause 1 of Chapter XIII ought to have been followed and

not Clause II. By the said amendments, the term of the office bearers cannot be extended. They are only elected for two years which cannot be extended for three years. The system of secret ballot has been given a go-by. There is no provision even under the amendment extending the period of office. The Official respondents committed fraud, which resulted in the application filed in I.A.No.340 of 2015 in O.S.No.5 of 2015 to be closed. Thus, this Court will have to take a judicial notice of the said fact and mould the relief. Accordingly, by keeping the term of officers to two years at every level, a fresh election will have to be conducted. The bye-laws are meant to activate the Constitution and not to destroy. Thus, they can neither act contrary to the Constitution nor introduce something which is not available therein. Therefore, appropriate orders will have to be passed by conducting fresh election with the own amended provisions and by ignoring the bye-laws. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions.

(1) Full Bench decision of Apex Court in CENTURY FLOUR MILLS LTD V. S.SUPPIAH AND OTHERS (1996) 4 SCC 285); and

(2) DHANANJAY SHARMA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 757)

14. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants in O.A.No.30 of 2016 and A.Nos.342 to 344 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016 submits that the applicants are not challenging the amendments and the bye-laws can only be given effect, prospectively. Therefore, the extension of the age from 65 to 67 years and the term will have to be done from the ensuing election. Hence, the applications are to be ordered.

15.

Mr.V.Stanley Rajasingh, Party in person, impleaded himself as fourth applicant/plaintiff in C.S.No.20 of 2016 being the elected Diocesan Council Member of Church of South India, Coimbatore, submits that the amendments would have the effect of changing Constitution of the dioceses. The amended provisions have not been published properly. There is no power available to undertake such an exercise. Thus, it is submitted that the applications will have to be allowed. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions:

(1) Order made by High Court of Delhi in DR.SHIKHAR JAIN AND OTHERS VS. NATIONAL NEONATOLOGY FORUM AND OTHERS in I.A.No.25235 of 2015 in CS.(OS) 3431 of 2015 dated 19.04.2016

(2) Order of this Court dated 02.01.2013 in C.R.P.(PD) No.2387 of 2012.

16. Submissions of the Respondents:- The learned Senior counsel appearing for the official respondent as well as the other respondents made the following submissions:

16.1. The suits filed are not maintainable on facts. The amendments have already been carried out by following the due procedure and so is the case qua the bye-laws. When the ratification has been done as per the law, the applicants cannot have any grievance. 16 out of 22 Diocesan Councils have ratified the amendments and therefore, the provision requiring two-third majority, has been complied with. As the provisions have come into force, nothing survives for adjudication. There is an alternative mechanism available under Chapter 11. Considering the protection available under Constitution of India, this Court shall not interfere with the administration of the official respondents. By January, 2017, in any case election would be conducted. There is neither a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The applicants are only a few in number. They cannot seek to achieve some thing which has been ratified by their own diocese. Some of the applicants are also the beneficiaries in age extension. Therefore, they cannot approbate or reprobate and thus, the principle

of estoppal would come into operation. The application before the Andhra Pradesh District Court was closed rightly since it was submitted that Chapter XIII would be followed and the same was accordingly followed. The ballot system still continues. It is only, the ordinary meeting has been extended from two years to three years and thus, the existing elected members are eligible for the same. As long as the object is not arbitrary, no interference is required.

16.2. The decision to extend the age is based upon administrative exigencies. It was introduced in view of the need for doing so as there was an acute shortage to perform various roles. It is also for the reason that new Churches have come into being. In support of the contentions, the following decisions are relied upon. 1.SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. B.D.KAUSHIK ((2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 774) 2.DR.M.THIRUNAVUKARASU VS. INDIAN PHYCHIATRIC SOCIETY TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PROF. SHRIDHAR SHARMA ((2008) 2 CTC 51)

3. Order of this Court dated 06.04.2015 made in O.A.No.396 of 2015 in C.S.No.64 of 2014.

17. While granting an order of interim injunction, this Court has to keep in mind the three well settled

principles. Admittedly, all the office bearers are functioning as of now. The amendments and the bye-laws have come into being. The prayer sought for in O.S.No.396 of 2015 is not to give effect to the amendments and byelaws. This has already been done. It is not, as if, the official respondents do not have power or authority to do so. There is no amendment of the governing principle sought to be made. Both the amendments and the bye-laws have been ratified by following the due procedure.

18. Now, the next election scheduled to be held in the month of January, 2017. The suits have been filed only on a representative capacity. Most of the Diocesan Councils have ratified the amendments. The prayers as sought for if granted would be in the realm of mandatory injunction. Such a power has to be exercised only on extraordinary and emergent situation and not otherwise. It is not, as if, all the beneficiaries of the amendments have been impleaded. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are not entitled to the relief sought for.

19. As rightly submitted by the counsels appearing for the respondents the system of ballot still continues. The period of three years of ordinary meeting from earlier two

years has been extended by following the due procedure. This Court does not find any arbitrariness in the said action especially when the procedure has been followed with the support of the majority. Similarly, there is no conflict with the governing principle. There is no contra material available at this stage to question the wisdom of the official respondents in mooting out the amendments and bye-laws. These are all the matters which we have to be seen at the time of trial. When once the amendments and bye-laws have come and by way of necessary consequence they will have to be applied to the incumbents. When the ordinary meeting is not convened within three years, and thus, by amendment, it was extended for three years, it cannot be said that only for the next meeting the amended provision will have to be applied. Therefore, looking from any perspective, this Court does not find any reason to allow these applications. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed.

20. All the defendants are directed to file written statements within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the issues will be framed within two weeks. After framing issues, the matter would stand posted for trial. It is also clarified

that the observations made in these applications by this Court are only prima facie and thus will not have any bearing to the main suits.

sd/.M.M.S.J 12.08.2016 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2016.

S.s/02.09.2016 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.