Installation Controversy of the Indian Catholicos: Judgement

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning: This page does not provide {{Header}} information. If you'd like to help, add a comment, or edit the page and replace "{{no header}}" with the following and fill in at least the title and author fields:
{{header
 | title      = 
 | author     = 
 | translator = 
 | section    = 
 | previous   = 
 | next       = 
 | year       = 
 | notes      = 
 | categories =
 | portal     =
}}
Click here for a list of Author pages that link to this page.

1. This is a petition filed by the plaintiff under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. 2. Petition averments stated are as follows:- petitioners are the parishners of St. Ignatious Orthodox Syrian Church, Kanjiramattam, a constituent church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church coming within the Diocese of Kochi. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (herein referred as Malankara Church) have more than 1500 parish churches and have 25 Dioceses and the administration of church has to be conducted as per 1954 Malankara Church constitution. As per 1934 constitution the Malankara Church has an association, elected representatives of parish churches known Malankara Association, a Managing committee and a working committee. There is also the Holy Episcopal Synod and all the Metropolitans of the church are members of the Holy Synod. The duly elected Malankara Metropolitan is the president of Malankara Association, managing Committee and working committee and the duly elected Catholicose is the president of the Holy Episcopal Synod. The first respondent is a Metropolitan of Malankara church and now he is styling himself as the Catholicose –cum- Malankara Metropolitan of the church by name Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Didimos –I. The 2nd respondent is the Secretary of Holy Episcopal Synod and he is impleaded representing the the Holy Episcopal Synod. The 3rd respondent is the Secretary of Malankara Association and he is impleaded representing the Association. The duly elected Malankara Metropolitan, in the capacity of president of the Association and in the capacity of President of Managing Committee and the working committee, is the person competent to convene the meeting of the same and the duly elected Catholicose in the capacity of President of Holy Synod, is the person competent to convene the meeting of Holy Synod. The Malankara Association, Managing Committee, Working Committee and Holy Synod are having powers to take decisions regarding the administration of the church. The Malankara Church is believed to have been founded in 52 A.D. by St. Thomas. The first General council convened by the Roman Emperor in the year 325 A.D established four patriarchates Viz, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, each headed by a Patriarch. The first General council also established another office Catholicose of the East, within the jurisdiction of Patriarch of Antioch. Christianity gained footheld in Kerala during 16th Century and Malankara Church was depending the Patriarch of Antioch for the various spiritual needs such as ordination of Bishops, consecration of Holy Morone etc. In the year 1876, the then Patriarch Peter – III visited Malankara and convened a meeting of credited representatives of churches and this meeting in church history is known as “Mulanthuruthy Synod” and formed an Association known as ‘Malankara Association’ the legislative body to manage the affairs of Malankara Church. Thereafter dispute arose in the Malankara Church over powers of patriarch of Antioch in Malankara Church, which resulted in litigation between two groups – Patriarch group and Catholicose group. The first litigation in this regard known as “Seminary Suit” was disposed of by the Royal Court of Final Appeal in the year 1899 and the Court held that ecclesiastical supremacy of Patriarch of Antioch over Malankara church is confined to ordaining Bishops directly or through authorized delegate, sending Morono and general supervision over spiritual governance of the church and his powers does not execute of temporal affairs of the church. This finding of the Royal court of Final Appeal in ‘Seminary Suit’ regarding the power of Patriarch of Antioch and All the East is further affirmed on 15.8.1995 in another case known as ‘Arthat Suit’ by the Court of Appeal, Cochin. Soon after the judgment in ‘Arthat Suit’ these arose a dispute over Patriarchate of Antioch as Sultan of Turkey withdraw the recognition given to Abdul Nessiah, Patriarch of Antioch and recognized Abdulla –II as Patriarch. This dispute over Patriarcate and the judgments in ‘Seminary Suit’ and ‘Arthat Suit’ resulted in revival of Catholicose of the East. In the year 1912 Patriarch Abdul Messiah came to Malankara and consecrated Mar Ivanios as Catholicose and also appointed him as Malankara Metropolitan, and revived the office of Catholicose of the East and this was upheld by the Full Bench of High Court of Travancore on 4.7.1928 in another suit known as “Vattippanam Suit”. After the disposal of “Vattippanam Suit” a meeting was convened on 26.12.1934 in M.D. Seminary at Kottayam for electing the Malankara Metropolitan and for adopting a constitution for the Malankara church and this meeting adopted the 1934 Malankara church constitution and also elected the Catholicose Mar Baseliose Geevarghese II as Malankara Metropolitan. The patriarch group convened a rival meeting on 22.8.1935 at Karingachira and elected Poulose Mar Athanasious as Malankara Metropolitan. Thereafter the Patriarch group filed O.S. No. 111/1113 M.E. for declaration of their title as trustees of the common trust properties of Malankara Church and for declaration that the trustee elected by the Catholicose group in the M.D. Seminary meeting are not lawful trustees. This suit known as “Samudayam Suit” and it was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.09.1958 and the judgment is reported in AIR 1959 SC 31, holding that the plea of Patriarch group that the Catholicose group had became hereties or alious or had gone out of the church by establishing a new church is unacceptable for the reason that this issue is concluded by the Hon’ble High Court of Travancore in Vattipana Suit and that M.D. Seminary meeting held on 26.12.1934 is legal and valid and the Karingachira meeting held on 22.8.1935 is not legal and valid. After the disposal of ‘Samudayam Suit’ as stated above there was settlement of disputes between the groups. Accordingly the Patriarch was invited to Malankara and the new Catholicose was installed on 22.5.1964 and the two groups in church joined together till 1970. But again difference surfaced during 1971 with respect to the applicability of 1934 constitution and the right and authority of Patriarch over Malankara church. Several suits were instituted in the various courts in the state including the representative suit filed by the them Catholicose - cum - Malankara Metropolitan for the reliefs mainly for declaration of the binding nature of 1934 constitution and for injuction against Bishops consecrated by Patriarch of Antioch. The First Additional District Court, Ernakulam was designated as special Court for trial and disposal of these cases and all the pending suits were transferred to the Special Court in 1976. The special court thereafter conducted trial of some of these representative suits including the suit filed by them Catholicose – cum – Malankara Metropolitan. Thereafter these representative suits were transferred to the Hon’ble High Court. On 6.6.1980 the Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court dismissed those suits. The Catholicose Group filed appeal before the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the same was allowed on 1.6.1990 and thereby the declarations and injunctions prayed for in these suits were granted. The Patriarch group filed appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on 20.6.1995, the appeals were disposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment is reported in AIR 1995 SC 2001. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as per judgment reported in AIR SC 2001 modified the appellate decree passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and among other things declared that the Patriarch is the Supreme Head of Syrian Church of which Malankara church is a division, the Patriarch has to temporal powers over Malankara church and further directed amendment of 1954 constitution in such a way as to make it a representative body of the entire spectrum of the community. The findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is contained in Paragraph 142 of the judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 2001. As per the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court hold that the decisions of the Malankara Association of or 1.1.1971 cannot be accepted or approved as the composition of the Malankara Association on the basis of existing provisions does not represent the entire spectrum of the community and therefore directed both parties as well as the Rule Committee to place draft amendments to constitution to substitute Clauses 46 and 71 of the constitution. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not accept the status of Mar Baselious Mathews- II, as Malankara Metropolitan for the reason that he was elected to that post by the Malankara Association after 1.1.1971. In the light of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated above both parties pleased their suggestions for substitutions for clauses 46 and 71 of 1934 constitution and the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 3121 substituted and amended clauses 46 and 71 of the constitution. The term of office of Diocesan Assembly and Malankara Association was fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for 5 years and held that status due as on 1.1.1971 has to be observed till the next Malankara Association is held. The order of status quo passed as per order reported in AIR 1996 SC 3121 was further clarified as per order reported in AIR 1997 SC 1035 to the effect that the incumbrants claiming status due should never allegiance to 1934 constitution. 3. Thereafter the Patriarch group filed Execution petition before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court to execute the decree dated 20.6.1995 and the subsequent orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court took the same on file and transmitted the name to First Additional District Court, Ernakulam for execution. The Catholicose group challenged this order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing appeal as C.A.No. 8185/01 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.11.01 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a consent order in C.A. No. 8185/01 directing Baselious Marthoma Mathews – II to convene the Malankara Association under Article 74 of 1934 constitution as amended and appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Kalinath (retired Chief Justice of Kerala High Court) as observer to over see the proceedings of the meeting. In Pursuance to the direction Moran Mar Baselious Mar Thoma Mathews- II convened to Malankara Association on 20.3.2002 at Parumala under the observation of the observer appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and elected him on Malankara Metropolitan by majority thereafter the observer filed a report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the outcome of the election and the Supreme Court on 7.12.02 approved the election of Moran Mar Baselious Mar Thoma Mathews- II as Malankara Metropolitan and satisfaction of the judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 2001, and the orders reported in AIR 1996 SC 3121. AIR 1997 SC 1035 and order dated 28.11.01 stands reordered. The report filed by the observer will also go to show that Moran Mar Baselious Mar Thoma Mathews II was not permitted to convene the meeting of the Malankara Association in the alleged capacity of Malankara Metropolitan. Clauses 97 and 114 of 1934 of the constitution is quoted as follows:- “The Malankara Metropolitan shall be elected to that office by the Association. If any one shall be consecrated as Catholicose he shall be elected to that office by the Association. If such election is approved by the Episcopal Synod, the synod shall consecrate that person as Catholicose. If there be a Patriarch recognized by the Malankara church the Patriarch shall be invited when the Catholicose is consecrated and if the Patriarch arrives he shall as the President of the Synod consecrating the Catholicose with the co-operation of the Synod”. Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews – II was the Catholicose –cum-Malankara Metropolitan duly elected by the Malankara Association and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He died on 26.1.2006 at the age of 92. The respondents are claiming that on 29.10.2005 Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathew – II abdicated the posts of Malankara Metropolitan-cum- Catholicose of the East. The present Malankara Association has not elected the 1st respondent as Malankara Metropolitan. Thereafter a few members of the Holy Episcopal Synod on 31.1.05 installed him as Catholicose of the East. The installation of the First respondent as Catholicose of the East is also illegal and in operative and also void ab initio for the sale reason that such installation as Catholicose is possible only if the incumbent is elected the post by the Malankara Association. The Association Managing Committee shall have a working committee consisting of not more than ten members and that body shall execute matters as decided by the Managing Committee. The first respondent though has no authority to convene the meeting of the Association, Managing Committee, Working Committee and Holy Episcopal synod is proposing to convene the meeting of Malankara Association , Managing Committee, Working Committee and Holy Episcopal Synod on the alleged claim of President of Malankara Association and Holy Episcopal Synod. If at all any meetings is being convened by the first respondent in the alleged capacity of the Malankara Metropolitan – cum- Catholicons, the same can never be implemented. As the first respondent is not elected to the posts of Catholicose – Cum – Malankara Metropolitan by the Malankara Association, the assumption of the office of Malankara Metropolitan and the consecration as Catholicose are void ab initio and accordingly 1st respondent to legally incapable of discharging any of the function of Malankara Metropolitan or Catholicose , including the convening of Malankara Metropolitan, Managing Committee, Working Committee and Holy synod of Malankara Church . The first respondent now has published notice No. 157/06 in the Capacity of Malankara Metropolitan – Cum – Catholicose proposing to convene the meeting of Malankara Association on 21-9-2006. The first respondent has no authority to convene the meeting of Malankara Association. The suit is instituted under Order 1 Rule 8 of OPC as numerous. Other persons are interested in the subject matter of the suit. The petitioners has a prima-facio case and the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the injection sought for in the position. If the proposed meetings are convened by the first respondent, the petitioner will be put to irrecoverable loan and jury. Hence the petitioners prayed for a temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the first respondent from convening any meetings of Malankara Association, Managing committee, working committee and Holy synod of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church including the proposed meeting of Malankara Association on 21-9-2006 in the capacity of Malankara Metropolitan – cum – Catholicose of the Church till the disposal of the suit. The petitioners also prayed for a temporary prohibitory injunction order, in the event of convening any meetings to restrain the respondents from implementing the decisions till the disposal of the suit. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 field separate counter affidavit 5.The contentions of first respondent stated are no follows:- The petitioners have no focus stands to quotation any actions of any person relating to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, as they belong to a different church. This respondent understood that the petitioner are not parishioners of the St. Ignatius Orthodox Syrian Church, Kanjiramattam, nor are they following the 1934 constitution as alleged in the petitions. The petitioners are the member of the erstwhile patriarch faction, who left the Orthodox Church and joined the new church called Yakobaya Suriyani Church formed at Puthencruz with a at of bye-laws fraced in 2002. St. Ignatious Orthodox Syrian Church at Kanjiramattam is included in the Cochin Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Church and the Diocesan Metropolitan to H.G Zachariah Mar Anthonios residing in the Aramana at Koratti. The Vicar of the said church, duly appointed by the said Metropolitan is Fr. Mathews Pulimoottil – Cor- Episcopa. The petitioners are not attending Holy Qurbana conducted by the said Vicar, and they are also not confessing before the said Vicar, and they are attending the Mass conducted by the Patriarch group priest of the church. The petitioners are not the member of the Malankara Association elected in 2002 under the supervision of Hon’ble Justice Malimath which electing has been approved expressly by the Supreme Court. The suit is not maintainable in this court, because this court does not have any territorial jurisdiction over the respondents. All the respondents are admittedly resisting outside the territorial limits of this court. The place of residence of the petitioner does not confer jurisdiction on this court for a suit of this nature. The suit also does not pertain to the Kanjiramattom church, but it is concerned with the intended actions of the first defendant in relation to the Malankara Association, its working committee and Managing Committee, all of which are functioning at Kottayam. This respondent was elected as Catholicose – Cum – Malankara Metropolitan in 1992 by the then existing Malankara Association and installed in 2005 October. The said election and installation is valid. The avernment that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has invalidated the actions and decisions of the Malankara Association after 1.1.1971 is incorrect. There is no such finding in AIR 1995 SC 2001 and its subsequent orders. The Supreme Court has not disapproved the status of HH Baselios Marthoma Mathews –II (Wrongly written as Marthoma – II in the plaint). It is false to any that H.H. Mathews – II was not permitted to convene the meeting in the capacity of Malankara Metropolitan. H.H. Mathews II was functioning as the Malankara Metropolitan not by virtue of the election in 2002 under the amended constitution. Neither the Canon nor the 1934 constitution impose any limitation regarding the time of electing the successor Catholicose-cum-Malankara Metropolitan, as alleged by the Petitioners. The practice of the church was also to elect a successor while the incumbent is alive. The post of Catholicose and Malankara Metropolitan has been unified in 1934 and has been so ever since. All subsequent elections have been to the combined posts only. The validity of electing a Catholicose –cum- Malankara Metropolitan designate during the lifetime of the existing incumbent was raised in O.S. 3/79, a representative suit, and the Kerala High Court had accepted such election to be valid. Since no appeal was preformed against that decision, that question is no more nos-integra and the claim is now barred by resjudicata. It was pursuant to be unanimous decision of the Episcopal Synod held at Parumala Seminary on 30th October, 2005 that the 1st respondent was consecrated as the Catholicose on 31.10.05 in the presence of and with the co-operation of H.H. Baselios Marthoma – II. The amendment of the constitution in 1996 is only prospective and has no retrospective or retroactive effect. The past completed actions of the Malankara Association prior to 1996 are all valid and the Supreme Court has expressly made it clear in its judgment and subsequent orders. It is admitted that an identical suit had been filed in the Kottayam Munsiff’s court, as O.S.No 670/05 by the enemies of Orthodox Church passing an believers in which the court had refused to grant any interim order. A second attempt in this court as O.S.No.1721/05 also did not bear fruit as no interim order were granted by this court. A third attempt was made by filling a quit in the Hon’ble District Court, Ernakulam during the summer vacation by another set of persons pretending to be a members of the church also failed to secure desired results since the court did not grant any interim orders. The petitioners have no prima –facie. No injury is caused by the meeting of the elected members of the Association and the concomitant bodies to the petitioners. The balance of convenience is in favour of this respondent’s continuance to function in the capacity of Catholicose and Malankara Metropolitan as this respondents have been doing for the last 8 months. 6. The contentions of the 2nd respondent stated are no follows:- This respondent admitted that ho is the secretary of the Holy Episcopal Synod of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The petitioners are not parishioners of the St. Ignatious Orthodox Syrian Church, Kanjiramattam, nor are they following the 1934 constitution. They are the members of erstwhile patriarch faction, now owing allegiance to Thomas Dionysius and the newly formed Yakobaya Suriyani Sabha having a separate bye-law formed in the year 2002at the Pythen-Cruz. St Ignatious Orthodox Syrian Church at Kanjiramattam is included in the cochin Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Church and the Diocese Metropolitan is H.G Zachariah Mar Anthonios residing in Sion Seminary, Koretty Post, Chalakudy. The Vicar of the said church, duly appointed by the said Metropolitan is Very.Rev.Fr.Mathews Pulimootil-Cor- Episcopa. The first petitioner was elected as a representative of the Association of the erstwhile Patriarch faction (which is titled as Yakobaya Suriyani Sabha). He was the convener of Sub committee formed in connection with the pilgrimage to Manjinikkara church in February 2006. The second petitioner is a stauch supporter of the Patriarch faction. On 31.12.05, when the flag hoisting ceremony was performed by the faithfully parishioners of the church, the second petitioner with his spiritual animosity has disturbed the function and the Mulanthuruthy police had resaved him from the scene. The petitioners have no focus standi to question any actions of any person relating to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, as they belong to a different church. They are strangers to the church. The petitioners are also nor members of the Malankara Association elected in 2002 under the supervision of Hon’ble Justice V.S. Malimath, which election has been approved expressly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Only members of as association can object to meetings of the association and its subordinate bodies. The reliefs prayed for in the suit and I.A. come within the purview of Sec.92 CPC. The petitioners can therefore file the suit only after obtaining leave form the court and only in the Principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction. It is true that the first respondent was elected as Catholicose –cum-Malankara Metropolitan in 1992 by the then existing Malankara Association and installed in 2005 October. There is no infinity or illegality in the election or installation as alleged by the petitioners. The interpretations of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 28.11.01 by the petitioners is incorrect. It is false to say that H.H. Baselios Marthoma Mathews – II was not permitted to convene the meeting in hnizm-k-kw-c-£-I³ 2 2006 HmKÃv v the capacity of Malankara Metropolitan. H.H. Mathews II was functioning as the Malankara Metropolitan not by virtue of the election in the year 2002 under the amended constitution. The status – quo order in 1996 has no application to the Malankara Metropolitan and Catholicose as there was no rival candidate for the post in 1996. Neither the Canone nor the 1934 constitution impose any limitation regarding the time of electing the successor Catholicose – cum-Malankara Metropolitan. On abdication of the post of Malankara Metropolitan and Catholicose, by the predecessor of the first defendant H.H. Baselios Marthoma Mathews – II on 29.10.05, the first respondent assumed office of Malankara Metropolitan. The Holy Episcopal Synod held at Parumala Seminary on 30th October, 2005 took a anonymous decision to consecrate the first respondent with the name Baselios Marthoma Didymos – I as successor to H.H. Baselios Marthoma Mathews – II. Thereafter on 31.10.05, the Holy Episcopal Synod at Parumala Seminary consecrated the first respondent as the Catholicose with the name H.H. Marthoma Didymos. There is no illegality or error in the installation and assumption of office by the first respondent. The first respondent has been accepted as Catholicose, Malankara Metropolitan and President of the Association by the entire members of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church and all its official bodies. Besides all these, the validity of the election and installation of the first respondent is sub-judice before the Supreme Court in I. A No. 16 of 2006 in civil Appeal No. 546 to 5466 of 2004 which came up of hearing on 12.7.06 and has been adjourned for final bearing to 6.9.06. That fact had received wide publicity not only in the newspapers but also in the visual media. The petitioners cannot be unaware of that fact. The petitioners have no prima-facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of first respondent being permitted to continue functioning as has been going on from October 2005 onwards. 7. The 3rd respondent raised the same contentions that of the counter affidavit contentions of respondents 1 and 2. 8. The petitioners filed reply affidavit containing as follows: - The allegations of the respondents to the effect that the petitioners are nor parishioners of St. Ignatious Orthodox Syrian Church, Kanjiramattam nor are they following the 1934 constituting are totally false and denied. The petitioners are the parishioners of the said church and it is evident from the voters list prepared by the Advocate Commissioner Mr. C. V. Antony as per orders passed by the Hon’ble First Additional District Court, in O.S. No. 2/1986. The averment that the petitioners are the members of erstwhile patriarch faction owing allegiance to Thomas Dinysious and his Yacobaya Suriyani Rito with a set of Bye-laws framed in 2002 is false and baseless. The petitioners are the members of Kanjiramattam church owing allegiance to 1934 Malankara sabha Constitution and there are many other members of the church who uphold the supremacy of 1934 constitution and there are many other members of the church who uphold that all the religious dignitaries in the church including the respondents are bound by 1934 constitution and have no right to claim any status in disobedience or in violation of the provisions contained in the constitutions. It is admitted that Manjinikkara is a famous pilgrimage center of Malankara sabha and parishioners owing allegiance to 1934 constitution used to visit Manjinikkara. Rev. Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil is not the present vicar of Kanjiramattam church and he is not officiating religious services in the church. It is to be noted that as per Kalpana No. 16/2006 of H.G. Zachria Mar Athanious, Rev Fr. Mathai Pulimoottil was appointed as Vicar of St Gregorious Orthodox Syrian Church, Elamkulam with effect from 12.3.06 and he is officiating in that church on all Sundays. The copy of Kalpana No. 16/ 06 dated 11.03.06 is produced along with the reply affidavit. It is an admitted fact that Rev. Fr. K. T. Alias was officiating in the Kanjiramattam church for the last one year in the place of Rev. Fr. Mathew Pulimootil and it is admitted that Rev. Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil and it is admitted that Rev. Fr. Mathew Pulimootil is not officiating the religious services in Kanjiramattam church from 5.01.05. This fact is evident from the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 5.8.05 in I.A. No. 2453/05 in RPA No. 427/03 and the same is produced herewith. It is an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner is elected as a representative to Malankara Association in the meeting of Parish Assembly convened by the then Vicar Rev. Fr. John Kanjirakkat on 27.4.1997. This election is in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 SC 2001. But the Malankara Association was not convened on 1997 as proposed and the same was convened on 2002 as per orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court. The only members of the Malankara Association have the right to object to the meeting is really without any legal basis. The suit is instituted on the basis of the cause of action and the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court also. The allegation that first respondent is elected as Catholicose – cum-Malankara Metropolitan in the year 1992 by tho them existing Malankara Association and installed in October 2005 and there is no legal infirmly in the election or installation is an assault and affront to the Rule of Laws and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR SO 2001, AIR 1996 3121, AIR 1997 SC 1035 and orders dated 28.11.01 and 12.7.02 and also the provisions of 1954 constitution especially Clause 97 and 114. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has invalidated the decisions of Malankara Association after 1.1.1971 as per its findings contained in paragraphs 144, 145 of the judgment in AIR 1995 SC 2001. the 3rd respondent has no authority to overrule the Supreme Court judgment and validate the decision of Malankara Association after 1.1.1971 as contended by them. H.H. Baselios Marthoma Mathews – II was approved as Malankara Metropolitan by virtue of his election to that post by the Malankara Association held at Parumala on20.3.02 in pursuance of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The first respondent is not elected to the posts of Malankara Metropolitan or Catholicose by the present Malankara Association and therefore he cannot function as such and convene any meeting or Malankara Association, Managing committee, Working Committee and Holy Episcopal Synod. The petitioners have locus standi to institute the suit. The petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not ordered and the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the injunction. 8. The points arise for consideration are as follows:- 1.Whether the petitioners are entitled to get an order of temporary prohibitory injunction as prayed for? 2.Order and costs. 9. On the side of the petitioners, Exte. A1 to A14 were marked. No exhibits for first respondent. Exts. B1 to B14 were marked for the 2nd respondent. Exte. B15 and B16 were marked for the third respondent. 10. Point no.1 - The respondents contended that the petitioners have no Iocus standi to institute the suit on the reason that they are not the parishioners of St. Ignatious Orthodox Syrian Church at Kanjiramattam and are not following the 1934 constitution and also they are the members of erstwhile patriarch factions, who have left the orthodox church and joined the now church called Yakobaya Suriyani Church formed at Puthencruz with a set of byelaws framed in 2002. The petitioners produced photo copy of votes list of Parishioners of the St. Ignatious Church Kanjiramattam and which was marked as Ext. A1 for reference. This document was not objected by the respondents. The S1. Nos. 44 and 106 is related to Parishioners named Babu Paul and Benny Mathai. The petitioners contended that these Sl. Nos. related to their name. The petitioners filled two separate affidavits dated 18-07-2006 sworn by them before a Notary Public and which were marked as Exte. A2 and A3 respectively. In Exts. A2 and A3 affidavite the petitioners affirmed their unconditional allegiance and loyalty to 1934 constitution as the Parishioners/members of the St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam. In the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3, they admitted that the petitioners are attending ‘Mass’ conducted by the Patriarch Group of Church (i.e. St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam) and a suit is pending regarding the said church in the special Court for church cases. This impliedly mean that the petitioners are the members of St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam. In the affidavit accompanying in the injunction application and in the reply affidavit the petitioners affirmed their allegiance to 1934 constitution as the members of St. Ignatious Church. The respondents contended that the Vicar of St. Ignatious Church is Rev. Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil and the petitioners are not confessing before the said Vicar and also not attending Holy Qurbana conducted by the said Vicar. The 2nd respondent filed an affidavit of Rev. Fr. Mathews Pulimoottil – Cor- Episcopa and which was marked as Ext. B11. In the Ext. B11 Rev. Fr. Mathews Pulimoottil affirmed that the petitioners are not the parishioners of St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam and they are not attending Holy Mass conducted by him and not also not confessed before him in his capacity as a Vicar. In that affidavit the Fr. Mathews Pulimoottil also affirmed that the petitioners belongs to Patriarch faction in the church and owing allegiance to Yakobaya Suriyani Church created by Fr. Thomas Dionysius Th petitioners contended that Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil is not the Vicar or St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam. The Petitioners produced certified copy of order date 5-8-05 in I.A. No. 2453/05 in RPA No. 427/03 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and which was marked as Ext. A4. Ext. A4 document shows that Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil – Cor-Episcopa is not the Vicar of St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam. The petitioners produced photo copy of Kalpana No. 16/06 dated 11-3-06 of Diocesean Metropolitan of Cochi and which was marked as Ext. A5. Ext. A5 shows that Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil was appointed as Vicar of St. Gregorious Orthodox Syrian Church, Elenkulam with effect from 12-3-06 and he is officiating no Vicar in that church. The respondent produced a computer printed order dated 13-12-05 of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in I.A. No. 3623/05 in RPA No. 427/03-A., and which was marked as Ext. B12 and contended that Fr. Mathews Pulimoottil is the Vicar of St. Ignatious Church Kanjiramattam. Ext. B12 order shows that there is a turn allotted top fractions in the St. Ignatious Church and a permission was given to Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil to conduct religious service and other …tric either by himself or any other priest or priests nominated by him. This does not that Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil was appointed as the Vicar of St. Ignatious Church. From the above discussion and from the available materials it is prima facie found that Fr. Mathews Pulimoottil is not the present Vicar of St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam. Ext. A1 to A3 documents to and the implied admissions of respondents 1 and 2 and the affidavit affirmations of the petitioners prima facie shows that the petitioner are the members of St. Ignatious Church , Kanjiramattam and owing allegiance to 1934 Constitution. 11. Respondents contended that this court has an territorial jurisdiction over them, since they are admittedly residing outside the territorial limits of the court. Respondents also contented that the place of residence of petitioners does not confer jurisdiction on this court for a suit of this nature. They further contented that the suit also does not pertain to the Kanjiramattam Church, but is concerned with the intended actions of the first respondent in relation to Malankara Association, its working Committee and Managing Committee, all of which are functioning at Kottayam, which is outside the Jurisdiction of the court. From this contention it can be seen that the respondents admitted that the suit is concerned with the intended actions of the first respondent (ie. in his alleged capacity as Malankara Metropolitancum- Catholicose) in relation to Malankara Association, its working committee, or managing Committee and Holy Synod. Both sides have admitted that 1934 constitution is binding on the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Petitioners produced 1934 constitution and which was marked as Ext. 49. As per clause 122 of Ext. A9 constitution, “Out of the annual gross increase of a church including income from its properties, 10% on the first Rs. 500/- and 5% on the next Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1500/- and 2.5% on the amount above Rs. 1500/- shall be sent every year to the Malankara Metropolitan. If the percentage as stated above of any church is loss than Rs. 10/- not lose than Rs. 10/- shall be sent from that Church to the Malankara Metropolitan under this item”. Clause 123 of constitution prescribes that Malankara Metropolitan shall allot the income derived no above at the rate of 4 out of ten Diocesan Bishop , 2 to the Diocesan fund, 1 to the Malankara Metropolitan and 3 to the Malankara Diocesan fund. Petitioners contented that amounts which were given by them and other parishioners of St. Ignatious Church, which is under the Malankara Church, is being sent to the Malankara Metropolitan as per Clause 122. They also contended that Malankara Metropolitan shall be the president of the association and the managing committee and the Metropolitan trustee of the community properties as per clause 98 if Ext. A9 Constitution. According to them, the decision taken by the first respondent in his alleged capacity Malankara Metropolitan will hnizm-k-kw-c-£-I³ 3 2006 HmKÃv affect then and the other Parishioners of St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam and the community properties of the said church. This version is not disputed and it can be accepted as a true fact. The fact that the Malankara Metropolitan have primary jurisdiction regarding the temporal and spiritual administration of Malankara Church and have jurisdiction to take over administration as per Ext. A9 constitution is not a disputed fact. So it can be informed that any decision taken by the first respondent in his alleged capacity as Malankara Metropolitan in the above stated matters will certainly affect the constituent Churches of Malankara Church including St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam. That will certainly affect the rights of the petitioners as Parishioners of St. Ignatius Church Kanjiramattam. The respondent to admitted that St. Ignatious Church, Kanjiramattam is under the Cochin Diocese and it is under the governance of Malankara Church, which is being headed by the Malankara Metropolitan –cum- Catholicose. Hence it is prima facie found that this court is having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. The 1st respondent contented that new the claim of petitioners is barred by resjudicate by virtue of decision of Hon’ble High Court in O.S. 3/1979. Doctrine of resjudicate is always related to the trial of the suit. Admittedly petitioners are not parties O.S. 3/1979. The respondents who are defendants in the suit has not filed written statement. The issue related to the territorial jurisdiction and doctrine of resjudicate can be considered in detail after filing written statement as a preliminary losses. 12. The main contention of the petitioner that the co..ption of office of Malankara Metropolitan by the first respondent and his subsequent installation as Catholicose on 31-01-05 is a fraud played upon the entire community by the respondent and the same is a collusive set on the part of the respondents and a few members of the Holy Episcopal Synod by passing and violating the provisions of 1934 constitutions. According to the petitioners, the first respondent has not been elected to the posts of either Malankara Metropolitan or Catholicose by the present Malankara Association. For the said reasons the petitioners contended that the first respondent is not entitled to claim himself that he is the Malankara Metropolitan or Catholicose of the East. They also contended that he is an usurper and therefore not entitled to discharge any of the functions of Malankara Metropolitan or Catholicose of the East. This is the main contention for the petitioners to file suit with this injunction application. 13. The respondents contended that the first respondent was elected as the Catholicose – cum – Malankara Metropolitan in 1992 by the then existing Malankara Association and installed in October, 2005 and there is no infirmity or illegality in the said election or installation as alleged by the petitioners. They contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not held that the decisions of the Association after 1.1.1971 are not invalid. According to them, the predecessor of Malankara Metropolitan H.H. Mathews II was functioning as the Malankara Metropolitan not by virtue of the election under the amended constitution. They contended that it is not to correct to say that H.H. Mathews II was approved as Malankara Metropolitan only after the election by the newly constituted association in 2002 and there was no such election at all at the meeting of the new association in Parumala in 2002. This is the main contention raised against the petitioners. The petitioners produced typed copy of order dated 28-11-01 of the Hob’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8185/ 01 and which was marked as Ext. A6. The petitioners also produced certified copy of Ext. A6 order and which was marked as Ext. A14. This order is also reported in 2002 (1) KLT 1125 (SC). As per Ext. A14 Order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that fresh elections shall be called by Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews – II by name by issuing necessary Kalpana to Parishes and the Malankara Association will be convened under Article 74 of the 1934 constitution, as amended. It is admitted that Moran Mor Baselius Marthoma Mathews – II was acting as Catholicose –cum-Malankara Metropolitan at the time of passing Ext. A14 order dated 28- 11-01. As per Ext. A14 order the Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed Hon’ble Justice N.S. Malimath the observer and to oversees that the elections so called are held in a free and fair manner. Ext. A 14 order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an special against the the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which had disposed of an application under order LXV Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondents therein for the transmission of the deices of the Hon’ble supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors. Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr. (AIR 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 286) for execution. In the Ext. A14 order the Hon’ble Supreme Court requested the observer to submit a report on the conduct of election and the execution of the decrees within a fortnight thereafter. By pursuing Ext. A14 order the Hon’ble Supreme Court liested Civil Appeal No. 8185/01 for further direction and for recording the satisfaction for decree on 15-4-02. The petitioners produced typed copy of report of the observer Hon’ble Justice V.S. Malimath dated 10-4-02, which was marked as Ext. 47. Ext. A14 order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly above that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not directed Moran Mor Baselius Marthoma Mathews –II in his capacity as Malankara Metropolitan – cum- Catholicose by issuing necessary Kalpana to Parishioners for calling Malankara Association. The word “by Name” in direction No. III in Ext. A14 is very significant. Ext. A7 report of the Hon’ble Justice V.S. Malimath dated 10- 4-02 show that as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Ext.A14 Order. Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathew – II convened the Malankara Association on 20-3-02 at Parumala under observation of the observer Hon’ble Justice V.S. Malimath and elected him as Malankara Metropolitan by majority. The petitioners produced typed copy of order dated 12-7-2002 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8185/ 01 which was marked as Ext. A8. Ext. A8 shows that the observer has filed Ext. A7 report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the outcome of the election and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 7-12-02 approved the election of Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma – Mathews – II as Malankara Metropolitan and transmission of the Judgment reported in 1995 SC 2001 and further orders reported in AIR 1996 SC 3121. AIR 1997 SC 1035 and order dated 28-11-01. (ie. Ext. A14 Order) stands recorded: Ext. A14 order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and 47 report of the observer appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court shows that Moran Mor Baselius Marthoma Mathew – II was not permitted to convene the meeting of Malankara Association in his capacity as Malankara Metropolitan during 2002. 14. The petitioners produced notice dated 13-12-01 issued by Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathew II and which was marked as Ext. A 10 Ext. A10 notice/ Kalpana was issued in his capacity as Malankara Metropolitan –cum- Catholicose. The petitioners also produced another notice dated 24-12-01 issued by Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathew –II and which was marked as Ext. A11. Ext. A11 notice was also issued by him in the capacity as Catholicose for convening the Malankara Association. The petitioners produced another notice dated 9-3-04 issued by Moran Mor Baselius Mathews –II and which was marked as Ext. A 12. Ext A12 notice was issued by him for convening the meeting of Malankara Association at Parumala on 10-7-04 in his capacity as Malankara Metropolitan. Ext. A10 to A12 notices were not Issued by Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathew – II “by his name” as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Direction No. 111) in Ext. A14 order. Any how fresh election has been conducted as per Ext A 14 and Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews – II was elected as the Malankara Metropolitan in the said meeting and it was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per said meeting and it was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per Ext. A8 order in Civil No. 8185/01. It is admitted the fact that Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma – II died on 26-1-06. Petitioners contended that respondents are claiming that on 29-10-05 Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathew –II abdicated the posts of Malankara Metropolitan Cum Catholicose of the East and on the same day itself first respondent assumed the office of Malankara Metropolitan, which is in violation of 1934 constitution and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2001. They also contended that the installation of the first respondent as Catholicose of the East is also illegal and inoperative. The 2nd respondent produced photocopy of minutes dated 10.9.92 of Malankara Association and which was marked as Ext B1. 2nd respondent produced Ext B1 document for showing that the first respondent is selected as successor to Mathew – II, Ext B1 shows that the first respondent was elected as successor to Mathews-II on 10.09.92 as candidate uncontested. The 2nd respondent produced photocopy of minutes of Holy Episcopal Synod dated 21.10.92 and which was marked as Ext B2. Ext B2 was produced by the 2nd respondent for showing that the elections of first respondent on 10.9.92 as Malankara Metropolitan-cum-Catholicose was approved by the Holy Episcopal Synod. Ext B2 shows that the Holy Episcopal Synod on 23.10.92 has approved the election of first respondent as successor to Malankara Metropolitan-cum- Catholicose on 10.9.92. 2nd respondent produced photocopy of minutes of Malankara Association dated 20.3.02 and which was marked as Ext B3. Ext B3 related to the minutes of the election of Marthoma Mathews – II as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ext B3 shows that in presence of observer of the Supreme Court and as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court election was conducted by the Malankara Association to the post of Malankara Metropolitan in presence of observer Hon’ble Justice V.S. Malimath on 20.3.02. The orders of observer Hon’ble Supreme Court and report of the observer appointed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Ext B3 document shows that only on 20-3-02 Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews – II was duly elected as Malankara Metropolitan. This fact is recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per Ext. A8 order and the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that said order is final and binding and not subject to challenge in any court or any other forum. After recording the said fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the satisfaction of the decree in AIR. 1995 SC 2001 and its subsequent decisions reported in 1996 and 1997. If that be so, the selection/election of first respondent as the successor to Malankara Metropolitan, i.e. Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews –II as per Ext. B1 dated 10-9-92 and subsequent ratification by Holy Synod as per Ext. B2 minutes dated 21-10-92 cannot be accepted. This is because of the reason that Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews-II was duly elected in accordance with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court only on 20-3- 02. The 2nd respondent produced photo copy of Kalpana No. PT 172/05 dated 29-10-05 and which was marked as Ext. B4 for reference. Ext. B4 shows that Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews – II has handed over his post as Malankara Metropolitan to the first respondent as a Birthday Gift. Ext. A9 constitution of Malankara Church will not provide such an handling over post of Malankara Metropolitan. The 2nd respondent produced another Kalpana No. 187/05 dated 29-10-85 issued by Marthoma Mathew II and which was marked as Ext.B5. Ext. B5 shows that the Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews-II abdicated his posts as Malankara Metropolitan-cum- Catholicose of the East on 29.10.05 due to his physical ailment 2nd respondent produced photo copy of minutes dated 30.10.05 of the Holy Episcopal synod and which was marked as Ext.B6. Ext.B6 shows that the Holy Episcopal Synod on 30.10.05 consecrated the first respondent as Catholicose of the East. In Ext.B6 it is recorded that Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II has handed over the charges of Malankara Metropolitan-cum –Catholicose to the first respondent as his successor. In Ext.B6 it is also recorded that the first respondent has assumed the post Malankara Metropolitan on 29.10.05. In Ext.B6 minutes it is also recorded that the first respondent has already been elected as successor of Catholicose. There is no much provision in Ext.A9 constitution for the election of successor Catholicose or a successor Malankara Metropolitan. First respondent produced minutes dated 29.5.06 of managing committee of Malankara Association and which was marked as Ext.B7. From Ext.B7 document it can be seen that the first respondent has been discharging his duties as Malankara Metropolitan. 2nd respondent produced photocopies of plaint in Os No.573/06 dated 15.5.06 filed before the vacation court Ernakulam and IA. No.1573/06 in the said suit and which were marked as Ext.B8 and B9 respectively. Respondents admitted that Os. No 573/06 suit is pending for consideration before this court. Ext. B8 suit is related to the dispute involved in the Malankara church. The petitioners are not parties to the said suit. Since the said suit is pending for consideration, no discussion is needed with regard to Ext. B8 and B9. 2nd respond produced hnizm-k-kw-c-£-I³ 4 2006 HmKÃv photocopy of plaint in Os. No. 1721/05 of this court and which was marked as Ext.10. Respondents admitted that Ext.10 suit is pending for consideration. Ext. A10 suit is related to the dispute in the Malankara church. The petitioners are not the parties in Ext. B10 suit. Since Os. No. 1721/05. Suit is pending for consideration, no discussion is needed to Ext.B10. The 2nd respondent produced another Kaplana No. 87/05 dated 7.7.05 and which was marked as Ext. B13. Ext. B13 was issued by Morn Mar Baselios Marthoma-II to the first respondent. In Ext. B13 Kalpana, the Baselios Marthoma Mathews-II stated that the first respondent was his assistant and successor to the post of Catholicose. As per Ext. B13 Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews-II has authorised the first respondent to hold the post of Angamali East Diocese. The 2nd respondent also produced another Kalpana No. 96/05 dated 9.6.05 issued by Marthoma Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews-II to the first respondent and which was marked as Exit. B14. In Ext. B14 he stated that the first respondent was his assistant and successor to Malankara Metropolitan –cum- Catholicose. As per Ext.B14 document Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews – II authorized the first respondent to hold posts of Idukki Diocese and Angamaly East Diocese. Third respondent produced photocopy of cover pages 1 to 4 and page nos 26 to 32 of page 222 of printed copy of judgment in original Suits – 1 to 8 of 79 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and which was marked as Ext. B15. These suits ultimately resulted in the judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 2001. The third respondent produced a notice related to Manjinikkara pilgrimage which was hold on 12th and 13th February 2006 and which was marked as Ext. B16. In Ext B 16 it is stated that the first petitioner was a convener of the said pilgrimage. The third respondent contended that 1st petitioner belongs to Patriarch Faction as per Ext. B.16 document. The petitioners contended that Manjinikkara is a famous pilgrimage center of Malankara Sabha and parishioners owing allegiance to 1934 constitution used to visit Manjinikkara. They also contended that over non-Christians participate in the pilgrimage to Manjinikkara. This version-can be accepted on the reason that it is a known pilgrimage center of Malankara Sabha. 15. From the aforesaid discussion it is found that Moran Mor Baselios Marthoma Mathews –II was duly elected to Malankara Metropolitan on 20.03.02 as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. So the respondents contention that the first respondent was elected as Malankara Metropolitan – cum- Catholicose during 1992 as successor of Moran Mor Baselios Marthoma Mathews –II cannot be accepted. There is no provision in Ext. A9 constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian church provides the election of successor of Malankara Metropolitan or Catholicose of the East. On this ground also the selection /election of first respondents as successor of Moran Mar Baselios Mathews – II during 1992 cannot be accepted. The judgment and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shows that there was a dispute regarding the post of Malankara Metropolitan by Moran Mar Baselios Mathews – II and hence the Hon’ble Supreme court has disorted the fresh election of Malankara Association and given clear guidelines of the said election. From the aforesaid discussion it is found that the first respondent is not validly elected as Malankara Metropolitan as per 1934 constitution after Ext. A8 order dated 12.7.2002 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. So also the consecration of first respondent as Catholicose is not in accordance with 1934 constitution. It is an admitted fact that Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews- II died on 26.01.2006. After his death the posts of Malankara Metropolitan –cum-Catholicose became vacant. The respondents 2 and 3 contended that the post of Malankara Metropolitan cannot be kept as vacant and it will affect the day to day functions of Malankara church and that is why successors are being elected. The petitioners contended that the above constitution of 2nd and 3rd respondents can’t be accepted in the light of provisions in Ext A9 constitution. Clause 73 of Ext A9 constitution provides that if the office of the Malankara Metropolitan is vacant, the Vice President, who is the “Senior Metropolitan” shall reside over the meetings of the Association. Clause 74 of Ext A9 constitution also provides, if the office of Malankara Metropolitan is vacant, two of the Vice presidents of if they fall half of the members of the Managing Committee may convene the Association. Considering the above clauses the above contention of respondents 2 and 3 cannot be accepted. The petitioners produced newspaper dated 29.6.06 of Malayala Manorama Daily and which was marked as Ext. A13 contains Kalpana No. 157/06 dated 08.7.06 issued by the first respondent in his capacity as Malankara Metropolitan cum- Catholicose for convening Malankara Association on 21.9.2006. Petitioners filed this injunction application to restrain the first respondent from convening the said meeting in his capacity as Malankara Metropolitan –cum-Catholicose and in his capacity as President of Malankara Association and Holy Episcopal Synod. From the aforesaid discussion it is found that the first respondent has not been duly elected as Malankara Metropolitan –cum- Catholicose of the Malankara church. So he is not entitled to act or held the posts as Malankara Metropolitan –cum- Catholicose of Malankara church. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already issued directions and guidelines for convening election of Malankara Association as per Clause Ext. A14 order dated 28.11.01, when this type of dispute was already arisen. The 1st respondent, who is not validly elected as Malankara Metropolitan is not entitled to convene any meetings of Malankara Association, Managing committee, Working Committee and Holy Episcopal Synod of Malankara Orthodox church. Hence the petitioners are entitled to a temporary prohibitory injunctions as prayed for. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. 16. Point No. 2 : - in view of the finding in point No. 1, the petition is allowed as follows . A temporary prohibitory injunction order is passed restraining the respondents from convening any meetings of Malankara Association, Managing Committee, Working Committee and Holy Synod of Malankara Orthodox Syrian church including the proposed meeting of Malankara Association on 21.9.06 in the capacity of Malankara Metropolitan – cum-Catholicose of the church and in the capacity of President of Malankara Association and Holy synod of the church, till the disposal of the suit.