Prayer : These Review Applications have been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C. against the common order passed by this Court in O.S. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017, dated 11.01.2018.

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the common order dated 11.01.2018 in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

P. Velmurugan, J.:— The first defendant in C.S. No. 634 of 2015, is the review applicant in Review Application Nos. 117 to 120 of 2020. The plaintiffs in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 are the petitioners in Contempt Petition Nos. 1135 of 2019. The plaintiffs are the Trustees of the St. George's Cathedral Trust and the defendants are the Presbyter-in-charge, Bishop and Presbyter-in-charge, respectively.

2. Since both the Review Applications and Contempt Petition are interlinked, they are taken up for final disposal by this common order.

3. Originally, the petitioners, as plaintiffs instituted the suit in O.S. No. 731 of 2012 against the defendants/respondents 1 to 3 in Contempt Petition No. 1135 of 2019 for declaration and permanent injunction. Pending O.S. No. 731 of 2012, the petitioners/plaintiffs were suspended from the primary membership of St. George's Cathedral Church on 28.06.2013. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed another suit in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 against the defendants/respondents 1 to 3 in Contempt Petition No. 1135 of 2019.

4. In the said suit in C.S. No. 634 of 2015, the petitioners have filed an Application in O.A. No. 804 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 for interim injunction and this Court by an ex-parte order dated 04.08.2015, granted interim injunction for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, the review applicant/first defendant filed an Application in A. No. 5797 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 to vacate the interim injunction granted in O.A. No. 804 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 dated 04.08.2015. The petitioners/plaintiffs have also filed applications in O.A. Nos. 802 to 804 of 2015 and A. No. 5796 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015. All the above applications were jointly taken up by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 08.08.2017, vacated the interim injunction granted by this Court on 04.08.2015 and allowed the application in A. No. 5797 of 2015 and dismissed the applications in A. No. 5796 of 2015 and O.A. Nos. 802 to 804 of 2015.

5. Challenging the above said common order dated 08.08.2017, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed intra Court Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the appeals, by common judgment dated 11.01.2018, disposed of all the appeals with a direction to the respondents, that the petitioners should be issued with the Cathedral Chime sheets in the form that they are presently given without inclusion of the fact that the petitioners as the Clergy trustees, pending adjudication of C.S. No. 731 of 2012 and further the pew sheets also should be issued to the petitioners, which would include their names and names of their family members on auspicious days, such as, birthdays and wedding anniversaries.

6. Being aggrieved by the said Common Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.01.2018, the defendants/respondents in Contempt Petition No. 1135 of 2019 filed Special Leave Petitions in S.L.P. Nos. 12688 to 12691 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the said S.L.Ps. filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were dismissed as withdrawn by the first defendant with liberty to work out the remedies in the review petition filed before this Court.

7. Thereafter, the review applicant/first defendant has approached this Court by way of these Review Application Nos. 117 to 120 of 2020 to review the common judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017. Contempt Petition No. 1135 of 2019, has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to punish the defendants/respondents for the willful disobedience of the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 11.01.2018 in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017.

8. Insofar as Review Application Nos. 117 to 120 of 2020, is concerned, the learned counsel for the review applicant/first defendant has raised the following submissions : -

9. Though the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 were initially suspended for a period of one year that a pre-condition to grant assurance and regression to work for unity and harmony of the church, the respondents 1 to 3 had failed to give the same for considering the revocation of the suspension, and hence, the suspension unless it is revoked stands and deemed to be continued subsequent to 28.06.2014 also.

10. The so-called trustees were already removed from the trusteeship and as a membership as on 29.06.2013 and therefore, they are not entitled to be issued with chimes or to include the names in the pew sheets on auspicious days such as birthdays and wedding anniversaries. Therefore, the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 11.01.2008 has to be set-aside and prayed to confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 08.08.2017.

11. per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents in Review Application Nos. 117 to 120 of 2020/plaintiffs would submit that pending C.S. No. 634 of 2015, the respondents filed an application in O.A. No. 804 of 2015 for interim injunction and this Court by an order dated 04.08.2015 granted an order of interim injunction for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, on the application filed by the first defendant in Application No. 5797 of 2015, the learned Single Judge vacated the interim injunction granted by this Court on 04.08.2015. The learned Single Judge without considering the grievance and also averments made in the affidavit, in an advisory nature, dismissed all the applications, however, the allegations levelled against the defendants can be decided after leading evidence in the Suit in C.S. No. 634 of 2015. However, on appeal preferred by the respondents in Review Application Nos. 117 to 120 of 2020/plaintiffs, the Division Bench of this Court, on proper appreciation of facts, set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 08.08.2017, and disposed the O.S.A. filed by the respondents in Review Application Nos. 117 to 120 of 2020/plaintiffs and there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

12. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that originally, the respondents in Review Application Nos. 117 to 120 of 2020/plaintiffs were suspended only for a period of one year from 28.06.2013 and the period comes to an end on 28.06.2014, and on the date of filing of the suit in C.S. No. 731 of 2012, there was no suspension order and the membership of the respondents 1 to 3 have not been removed. The suspension period came to be ended on 28.06.2014 itself, even after the review applicant/first defendant failed to include the names of the respondents/plaintiffs in the pew sheets on auspicious days such as birthdays and wedding anniversaries. Therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs instituted another suit in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 and as such, the dispute between the respondents/plaintiffs and the review applicant is pending and pending disposal, the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought for in the applications. There is no new ground to entertain the review applications and therefore, the grounds raised in the review application are not the legal grounds to sustain the review applications and therefore, prayed for dismissal of review applications.

13. Submissions with regard to Contempt Petitions:

14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that Initially the petitioners have filed a suit in C.S. No. 731 of 2012, before this Court. During the pendency of the said suit, the previous Bishop v. Devasahayam suspended the petitioners on 28.06.2013, for a period of one year, without following the due process of law or the by-laws/rules of the Madras Diocesan Constitution of Church of South India. The said one year period of suspension came to be end on 28.06.2014 and as such, the petitioners were continued to be members, as there was no order extending their suspension nor any enquiry was conducted against them.

15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that this Court, while hearing the Appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017, vide order dated 19.12.2017, directed the petitioners to meet the Bishop, the second respondent herein on 04.01.2018 at 11.00 a.m. at his office, in connection with their membership issue and directed the learned counsel for the parties to revert to this Court on 10.01.2018, as to the outcome of the said meeting. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioners went to the Bishop office and requested the second respondent to extend their membership facilities as they had already assured the then Bishop of maintaining harmony among the entire congregation and will continue to work for the unity and peace of the Cathedral Church and protection of the trust properties for the benefit of the members, which the then Bishop Devasahayam did not choose to revoke during the one year period. Even after the expiry of the one year period of suspension, viz., 28.06.2014, neither enquiry was held, nor orders of extension was passed by the then Bishop or subsequently.

16. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the matter came up for hearing on 10.11.2018, the learned counsel for the first respondent sought for an adjournment to 11.01.2008 to convince the second respondent relating to the grant of membership. However, on 11.01.2008, the learned counsel first respondent represented that there was no instructions from the second respondent. Since there has been no order continuing the suspension and also there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have not been removed as members of the Church, the Division Bench has given its findings vide judgment dated 11.01.2018, that the petitioners can be granted copies of pew sheets in the manner they are presently marked and their names and those of their family members can be included in the pew sheets pending trial in the suit, as the suspension order stood dissolved after 28.06.2014 and therefore these rights pending the suit cannot be denied to the petitioners/plaintiffs and that whether or not the petitioners have been acting against the interest of the Church and if so what would be the ramification of the same would be the subject matter of the trial in the suit in C.S. No. 731 of 2012.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioners further proceeded to contend that, after coming to know about the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 11.01.2018, the respondents 1 and 2 herein with a mala fide intention to overcome and override the implementation of the said judgment in providing membership facilities to the petitioners in the said Church have conspired together and the second respondent has fabricated letters ante dated as 10.01.2018 and sent it on 12.01.2018 by speed-post with proof of delivery, even though it is mentioned as “Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due” to them, without any reference whatsoever to the order dated 19.12.2017 of this Court or their meeting with the second respondent in the presence of the first respondent, which amounts to clear suppression of material facts. Further, the second respondent herein has illegally extended the suspension of the petitioners from the membership for a further period of two years with effect from 10.01.2018, alleging that he has considered their representation sent through the first petitioner's reply dated 05.08.2013.

18. Adding further, on 21.01.2018, in the morning divine worship service at St. George Cathedral Church, which began at 07.20 a.m. the first respondent suppressing the passing of the said judgment dated 11.01.2018 by this Court also committed the contemptuous act by stating that as instructed by the Diocese of Madras, he was reading the second respondent's ante dated 10.01.2018 letter extending petitioners' suspension period by two years and has put up the letters on the Church Notice Board and further added that based on advice of their learned counsel, such extension was made by the second respondent, thereby implicating the learned counsel also. Hence, the petitioners were compelled to send a reply notice dated 30.01.2018, through their counsel to the second respondent with copy to the first respondent, requesting the second respondent to withdraw their ante dated letters dated 10.01.2018, immediately and announce the withdrawal in the Cathedral Church through the first respondent and also the directions of this Court in its order dated 11.01.2018. Even though the said notices were served on 31.01.2018, there has been no withdrawal of the ante dated letter nor the illegal and void letters dated 10.01.2018, put up on the Church Notice Board have been removed nor the directions of this Court have been complied with, which is a clear violation committed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein and also it shows their total disregard and disrespect to the judgment of this Court and there is a deliberate and willful disobedience on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 by fabricating documents especially after coming to know about the passing of the order against them. As such, the respondents 1 and 2 have defamed the petitioners name before the Cathedral members by such false imputations of acting against the Church and have caused great mental agony and suffering apart from not providing the privileges of membership in Cathedral Church for the petitioners.

19. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the birthday of the second petitioner came up on 21.02.2018, but his name was not printed in the pew sheets for the Sunday dated 14.01.2018 and the Cathedral Chimes for the months of January, 2018 and February, 2018 have not been issued to them till date. The wedding anniversary of the second petitioner came on 20.09.2018, but his name was not printed in the pew sheets for the Sunday dated 15.09.2018, for Church members to pray. Similarly, the first petitioner's birthday came up on 12.04.2018, but his name was not printed in the pew sheets for Sunday dated 08.04.2018.

20. While being so, the first respondent was transferred from Cathedral Church and posted to Zion Church, Chintadripet, Chennai by the second respondent with effect from 01.06.2018 and the third respondent herein was posted to Cathedral Church. The third respondent initially made all efforts to reconcile the issues and also to comply with the judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018, passed in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017. Earlier, the petitioners had filed a contempt petition against the respondents 1 and 2 herein before this Court and after notice was ordered in Sub Application No. 102 of 2018 in Contempt Petition Sr. No. 8619 of 2018, the same was dismissed as closed by order dated 30.07.2018, based on their memo as the new Presbyter Rev.Y.L. Babu Rao, the third respondent herein, had taken steps to restore peace in the Cathedral Church and in compliance of the judgment dated 11.01.2018 in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017 passed by this Court, had printed the name of the wife of the first petitioner herein in the pew sheet for the Sunday Divine Morning Worship Service on 15.07.2018 at 07.30 a.m. Further, on 15.07.2018, Rev. Babu Rao had also personally given the first petitioner's wife a Cathedral Church Birthday greeting card and had assured to provide the membership facilities to the petitioners as per the findings of this Court in its order dated 11.01.2018 including receiving of the membership subscription.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners have also sent their membership subscription pursuant to the order dated 11.01.2018, finding that they continue to be members of St. George's Cathedral Church to the third respondent who accepted the same but did not encash the cheques nor issued any receipt for their subscription as it is informed that even the third respondent has been compelled by the respondents 1 and 2 and the Office Bearers of the Diocese of Madras to follow the stand taken by the defendants in C.S. No. 731 of 2012 as against the petitioners. Despite the assurances given by the third respondent to restore the membership of the petitioners, based on which, the earlier contempt petition was withdrawn, further action was not taken to restore the membership of the petitioners by the third respondent. As such, the third respondent has also disobeyed the judgment dated 11.01.2018 of this Court by not printing the names of the first petitioner and his wife for their wedding anniversary which came up on 21.10.2018 in the pew sheets for Sunday dated 21.10.2018 and has not issued the Cathedral Chimes to the petitioners. This clearly proves the contemptuous acts committed by the respondents herein in violation of the judgment dated 11.01.2018 and the said violation continues till now.

22. It is further represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are senior citizens, the first petitioner being above 83 years, the second petitioner being 72 years and the third petitioner being 74 years and this loss of stature and agony at such an age, after having achieved high positions and social stature by their respective merit and hard work and won social recognition and have dedicated their life for the Church, now in the evening of their life, they are being treated in this contemptuous manner by the respondents just to humiliate them to make them yield by withdrawing the suits in C.S. No. 731 of 2012 and C.S. No. 634 of 2015 on the control and management of the Trust property which has been all along with the trustees and now the respondents have tried to take over illegally by unlawful means. As the respondents have not implemented the directions issued in the judgment dated 11.01.2018, the petitioners have filed this contempt petition to take appropriate action against the respondents for their willful disobedience of this Court's judgment dated 11.01.2018. If the respondents continued to disobey the judgment passed by this Court, the petitioners will be put to severe loss and agony and loss of reputation among the Church members for no fault of theirs.

23. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to punish the respondents under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their willful disobedience of the common judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by this Court in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017.

24. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments:—

(i) Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 443; and

(ii) Sabirabi v. B. Obula Reddy & Anr. reported in (2001) 107 Cri LJ 1285 AP.

25. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3/defendants 1 and 3 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent/second defendant would submit that the petitioners were suspended w.e.f. 28.06.2013 and denied that the said period of one year suspension had expired on 28.06.2014 and they specifically deny that the petitioners still continue as the members as there is no order extending suspension or any enquiry conducted against them. According to the first respondent on 10.01.2018, the present Bishop had already suspended the petitioners for a period of two years from 10.01.2018 till 10.01.2020. Further the petitioners have neither challenged the order dated 28.06.2013 as on date nor have they challenged the order dated 10.01.2018. Further, the petitioners have taken out another Appln. No. 3473 of 2013 in C.S. No. 731 of 2012, in which, they have sought only for an interim stay of the operation of letter dated 28.06.2013, which application was also dismissed on 11.09.2015 by the learned Single Judge of this Court and hence the suspension is still in force and holds good and the petitioners are no more members of the St. George's Cathedral Church, Chennai.

26. It is further submitted that this Court while hearing the appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017, by order dated 08.08.2017, directed all the petitioners to meet the Bishop, the second respondent herein and have a meeting to settle the disputes amicably among themselves. But on the said date and time fixed by this Court, the petitioners failed to appear for the said meeting and a memo was filed to that effect before this Court on 19.12.2017. Thereafter, this Court once again extended the time on 19.12.2017 and fixed the meeting date on 04.01.2018 at 11.00 am at the office of the Bishop, the second respondent herein and directed both the learned counsels to revert back on 10.01.2018. According to the learned counsel in the meeting, the petitioners did not make any request to extend their membership, but on the contrary, they were only arguing upon the membership and ownership of the Cathedral Trust properties and there is no such provision for reinstallation anywhere in the Rules of Madras Diocese or CSI or Cathedral Church Constitution. It is also submitted that the respondents/defendants have not requested the petitioners/plaintiffs to withdraw all the cases filed against the Cathedral Church Management, but, advised the petitioners/plaintiffs to repent for their misdeeds, and asked them to come with clean hands and then, their remission will be considered.

27. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the suspension order dated 28.06.2013, the former Bishop had specifically stated that the petitioners were suspended from the primary membership of St. George's Cathedral Church initially for a period of one year. The revocation of the suspension can be considered by the Bishop on the petitioners assurance to work for unity and harmony of the Church. According to the learned counsel the word ‘initially’ is a deeming provision that was considered by the Bishop only as a pre-condition that the petitioners should give assurances to work for unity and harmony of Church which assurance was not given by the petitioners as on date. Hence, the order dated 28.06.2013, is having a deeming provision to subsist till the subsequent order dated 10.01.2018 was passed by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the right of the membership facilities subsequent to expiry of the suspension period on 28.06.2014. The order of suspension dated 10.01.2018, is sufficient to consider and the petitioners were demarcated as suspended members who, had lost the privileges, facilities and membership of the Church.

28. The learned counsel for the respondents further added that the respondents have not suppressed the passing of the order dated 11.01.2018, by this Court and denied that they have committed any contemptuous act. The letter dated 10.01.2018, is just and necessary and the same was put up in the Church notice board on the same day and not as averred by the petitioners on 21.01.2018. The decision was taken on 10.01.2018, by the head of the Church namely the Bishop in Madras, the second respondent herein, under the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and within its ambit. The letter dated 10.01.2018, was affixed on the Church board on the same day and only on the next day i.e., on 11.01.2018, this Court passed its judgment. After the passing of the order of suspension of the members for a period of two years by the second respondent, they were not aware of the future order passed by this Court on 11.01.2018, which is subsequent. Further, the present contempt petition and affidavit was dated 10.12.2018, whereas the petitioners have already invoked their remedy by filing a separate fresh suit in O.S. No. 1302 of 2019 on the file of the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai even as on 09.01.2019 for the relief of compensation for the damages and defamation for the same cause of action as alleged in the contempt petition, which is pending adjudication.

29. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the petitioners have been suspended and the order pertains to two years with effect from 10.01.2018 and that suspended member does not have the privilege of printing of their names in the pew sheets or in the Cathedral chimes to be issued, as per the procedural rules and by-laws of the constitution and the Cathedral Church comes under the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. During the relevant period of time steps have been taken to file review petition to review the order dated 11.01.2018, passed by this Court and also the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 12688 to 12691 of 2018, which was filed on 20.07.2018, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to work out the remedies in the review petition before this Court. The petitioners have not given any letter to the respondents requesting that their names be printed in the pew sheets or seeking for cathedral chimes which have to be issued as per their claims over the rights as a non-member.

30. The learned counsel for the respondents further proceeded to contend that there is no contempt as the petitioners have already filed contempt petition and they withdrawn the same by filing a memo and the said contempt petition was dismissed by this Court on 30.07.2018. Therefore, this second contempt petition is not maintainable. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the suspended members are not entitled for any benefits and initially the petitioners were suspended by a letter dated 28.06.2013 and the said order has already expired on 28.06.2014. It is further submitted that this Court passed directions in the appeal on 11.01.2018, but whereas the petitioners suspension was extended w.e.f. 28.06.2014 on 10.01.2018 and the same was also communicated to the petitioners and the respondents were not aware of the judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018 passed in the appeals.

31. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that when the facts are not clear and matter of interpretation required, there cannot be any willful disobedience, since the suspension order of the petitioners dated 28.06.2013 were extended before this Court issued directions in its judgment, in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017 dated 11.01.2018. Further, the contempt petition is not at all maintainable as the same is being filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioners are suspended members and therefore they are not entitled for any benefits, and therefore the non implementation of the directions of this Court is not a willful disobedience. The action complained of, does not constitute contempt and it is only a black mail action intended to threaten and harass the Church administration, by the petitioners.

32. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments:—

(i) Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Ors v. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications reported in (2008) 11 SCC 579;

(ii) Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh reported in (2002) 4 SCC 21;

(iii) B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Limited v. Ajoy Mehta reported in (2009) 3 SCC 458;

(iv) Sadhu Singh v. R.S. Verma reported in (2002) 10 SCC 582;

(v) Malathi Das (retired) now P.B. Mahishy v. Suresh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249;

(vi) Dravya Finance Private Limited v. S.K. Roy reported in (2017) 1 SCC 75;

(vii) Anup Bhushan Vohra v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta reported in (2011) 13 SCC 393;

(viii) Director of Education, Uttaranchal v. Ved Prakash Joshi reported in (2005) 6 SCC 98;

(ix) Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd v. Gautam Goswami reported in (2008) 5 SCC 339;

(x) Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State Of Bombay reported in AIR 1962 SC 853; and

(xi) B.K. Savithri v. B.V.S. Anand reported in (2005) 10 SCC 207.

33. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

34. Admittedly, the petitioners in Contempt Petition No. 1135 of 2019/plaintiffs have originally filed a suit in C.S. No. 731 of 2012 on the file of this Court and subsequently, during the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners were suspended from the primary membership of St. George's Cathedral Church on 28.06.2013, for a period of one year and the said period expired on 28.06.2014. Subsequently, the petitioners filed another suit in C.S. No. 634 of 2015, on the file of this Court. They have also filed an interim application in O.A. No. 804 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015, for an interim injunction and a learned Single Judge of this Court vide ex parte order dated 04.08.2015, granted interim injunction for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, the first respondent filed an application in A. No. 5797 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 to vacate the said interim injunction granted in O.A. No. 804 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 dated 04.08.2015 and the petitioners have also filed applications in O.A. Nos. 802 to 804 of 2015 and A. No. 5796 of 2015 seeking other reliefs. All the above applications were jointly taken up by the learned Single Judge of this Court and by a common order dated 08.08.2017, vacated the interim injunction granted by this Court dated 04.08.2015 and allowed the application in A. No. 5797 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015 filed by the first respondent herein and dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in A. No. 5796 of 2015 and O.A. Nos. 802 to 804 of 2015 in C.S. No. 634 of 2015. As against the said common order dated 08.08.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners have filed intra Court appeals before a Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017. The Division Bench of this Court after hearing the said appeals, by a common judgment dated 11.01.2018, disposed of all the appeals with a direction to the respondents that the petitioners will have to be issued Cathedral Chime sheets in the form that they are presently given without inclusion of the fact that the petitioners as the Clergy trustees, pending adjudication of C.S. No. 731 of 2012 and further directed that the pew sheets has to be issued to the petitioners, which would include their names and names of their family members on auspicious days, such as birthdays and wedding anniversaries.

Review Application : -

35. The present Review Applications are filed by the learned counsel, mainly on two grounds : -

36. The first limb of argument of the learned counsel for the review applicant is that though the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 were initially suspended for a period of one year that a pre-condition to grant assurance and regression to work for unity and harmony of the church, the respondents 1 to 3 had failed to give the same for considering the revocation of the suspension, and hence, the suspension unless it is revoked stands and deemed to be continued subsequent to 28.06.2014 also.

37. This Court in paragraph No. 5 has preciously considered the above said submission and held that a bare perusal of the order passed by the second respondent would show that the membership was suspended only for a period of one year, subject to it being revoked earlier, upon the appellants making entries. For better appreciation, paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:—

5. “….we are of the view that two directions sought in the appeal, which via the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined, can be granted for the following reasons:

(i) The membership of the appellants was suspended vide order dated 28.06.2013, the relevant extract of the said letter has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The extract reads as follows:

You are also suspended from the primary membership of St. George's Cathedral initially for a period of one year. However, revocation of this suspension can be considered by the Bishop on your assurance to work for the unity and harmony of the Church.

(i)(a) A bare perusal of the aforementioned extract would show that the membership was suspended only for a period of one year, subject to it being revoked earlier, upon the appellants making entries.

(ii). Mr. V. Raghavachari, on being queried, does not dispute the fact that upon the period of one year having been passed, since the order of suspension was issued, there has been no order continuing the suspension.

(ii)(a) Mr. Raghavachari, also does not dispute the fact that the appellants have not been removed as members of the Church.”

38. On 28.06.2013, suspension order came to be passed and it got expired on 28.06.2014 itself. Thereafter, the respondents have not extended the suspension on or after 28.06.2014. However, one day prior to the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, i.e., 10.01.2018, said to have extended the period of suspension for the further period of two years and that too, without conducting any enquiry removed the name of the petitioners from the membership of the said Church. Further, though the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs offered their explanation, the same was rejected by the second defendant, vide the order dated 10.01.2018. It is to be noted that admittedly, the order of suspension was issued vide order dated 28.06.2013, for a period of one year only. In the suspension order, it is stated that, before completion of one year, if the respondents given assurance and regret, the same will be revoked. According to the learned counsel for the review applicant, since the respondents have not given any assurance within one year, the suspension order was not revoked within the year. However, it is to be noted that after expiry of one year, the order of suspension was not extended. Thereafter, in order to escape from the order of this Court, after passing the order on 11.01.2018, they have subsequently created the extension of suspension order, as if, it was passed on 10.01.2018 itself, which is not factually or legally sustainable. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the review applicant is not acceptable. Even assuming that the review applicant extended the order of suspension, there is no occasion arrived to extend all of sudden, after four years that too, when the appeals are coming for final hearing, which itself shows that in order to avoid the decision would be rendered by this Court and not for any other reason.

39. The other limb of argument of the learned counsel for the review applicant is that since the petitioners/plaintiffs were already removed from the trusteeship and as a membership as on 29.06.2013, they are not entitled to be issued with chimes or to include the names in the pew sheets on auspicious days such as birthdays and wedding anniversaries. However, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the petitioners will have to be issued Cathedral Chime sheets in the form that they are presently given without inclusion of the fact that the petitioners as the Clergy trustees, pending adjudication of C.S. No. 731 of 2012 and further directed that the pew sheets has to be issued to the petitioners, which would include their names and names of their family members on auspicious days, such as birthdays and wedding anniversaries. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and hence, the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court is to be reviewed.

40. This Court is unable to accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the reason that the very removal of membership itself was not admitted. At the risk of repetition, paragraph No. 5(ii)(a) of the order, the Division Bench of this Court, has held that, Mr. Raghavachari, also does not dispute the fact that the respondents have not been removed as members of the Church. When the suspension order was not extended even after expiry of one year, even on the subsequent years, there is no necessity arises to extend the order of suspension all of sudden, after four years, that too, when the appeals are in the final stage of disposal, which itself shows mala-fide intention of the review applicant. The review applicant has not come with clean hands.

41. The learned counsel for the review applicant made a valiant attempt to convince the Court to entertain this Review Application. Though the learned counsel for the review applicant stated that there was an error apparent on the face of the record, he could not establish the same. It is also a well settled position of law that review is not an appeal in disguise. Review Applicant, under the guise of these Revision Applications, wants to re-agitate the matter once again and the same is impermissible in law.

42. This Court has carefully considered the submissions on either side. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order passed by this Court in the appeals. The applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands. The action of the applicant is nothing but, abuse of process of this Court.

43. In our considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to exercise the power of review and we find no merit in these Review Applications. Therefore, these Review Applications are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Contempt Petition:

44. According to the petitioners/plaintiffs, the respondents have willfully disobeyed to implement the said directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the common Judgment dated 11.01.2018. After knowing about the judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018 and the consequential directions of this Court, in the said judgment, the respondents have fabricated the letter as if they have extended the suspension of the petitioners vide resolution dated 10.01.2018 itself and they have dispatched the said letters only on 12.01.2018, which itself would show that after coming to know about the judgment of this Court and the directions passed in the said judgment, the respondents have fabricated the letter dated 10.01.2018 and extended the suspension of the petitioners for a further period of two years with ante date, which is illegal and willful disobedience of the judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018 and thereby, the respondents have committed contempt of this Court and they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

45. According to the respondents, the respondents were not aware of the judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018 and that on 10.01.2018 itself they have extended the period of suspension of the petitioners for a period of two years with retrospective effect and therefore there is no contempt.

46. It is not in dispute that the suspension order came to be passed on 28.06.2013, for a period of one year and it got expired on 28.06.2014 itself. It is also not in dispute that when O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017, came for hearing on 10.01.2018, the learned counsel for the first respondent/first respondent sought for an adjournment to 11.01.2018 to convince the second respondent relating to the grant of membership. When the matter came up for hearing on 11.01.2008, the learned counsel first respondent represented that there was no instructions from the second respondent and the Division Bench of this Court, after referring the letter dated 28.06.2013, held that ‘the membership was suspended only for a period of one year, subject to it being revoked earlier upon the appellants/plaintiffs making entries and disposed the applications’.

47. However, in the reply affidavit filed by respondents/defendants, it could be seen that the second respondent, vide order dated 10.01.2018, extended the suspension of the petitioners for the further period of two years with effect from today (10.01.2018). It is also further stated in paragraph No. 12 of the reply affidavit, that ‘after the passing of the order of suspension of the members for a period of two years by the second respondent, they were not aware of the future order could be passed by this Court on 11.01.2018, which is subsequently’.

48. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the suspension period of the petitioners was already extended well before 11.01.2018 when the judgment was pronounced by this Court, i.e., on 10.01.2018 itself, as the second respondent has taken a decision to extend the suspension of the petitioners for a period of two years with effect from 10.01.2018.

49. It could be seen that the so called alleged extension of suspension period vide letter dated 10.01.2018, was dispatched to the petitioners only on 12.01.2018 by speed-post and the same is reflected at page No. 185 of the typed set of papers filed by the petitioners, where the dispatch receipt has been attached, which clearly shows that the letter was dispatched to the petitioners only on 12.01.2018.

50. Further, the petitioners, in the reply legal notice sent through their counsel to the second respondent dated 30.01.2018, have clearly stated that the respondents have ante dated the letter sent to the petitioners as 10.01.2018 and posted them in the early hours of 12.01.2018 by speed-post and curiously marked copies to the counsel appearing in the said case. Further, in the rely legal notice, it is also stated that on 21.01.2018, in the Morning Divine Worship Service at St. George Cathedral Church, the Presbyter, who is the first respondent herein, suppressing the passing of the said common judgment dated 11.01.2018 by this Court also committed the contemptuous act by stating that as instructed by the Diocese of Madras, which is headed by the second respondent herein, read the ante dated 10.01.2018 letter extending the suspension period by two years of the petitioners and has put up the said letters on the Church Notice Board.

51. It is pertinent to mention that if the suspension of the petitioners were extended even on 10.01.2018 itself, the respondents would have informed the same to their respective counsel or to the Court when the matter was taken up before this Court on 10.01.2018 and subsequently on 11.01.2018 and this Court has also clearly observed the same in its judgment. The postal receipt clearly proves that only on 12.01.2018, the letters were dispatched and further there is no materials to show that the respondents extended the suspension order of the petitioners on 10.01.2018 itself.

52. For better appreciation, the order passed by the second respondent, dated 10.01.2018 is extracted hereunder:—

“This is to inform you that I have gone through in detail the communication from the Bishop in Madras, dated 28.06.2013 addressed to you, as well as your explanation dated 05.08.2013, offered by you in response to the above said communication.

I have also perused other communications and documents in relation to the above subject. I find that your actions are serious in nature, spoiling the peace and harmony in St. George's Cathedral and challenging the authority of the Diocese of Madras, Bishop in Madras and the Church of South India Trust Association.

You have not regretted for your actions and you have not assured me that you will work for unity and harmony of the Church.

I do not find any other good and sufficient reason for your actions as detailed in the Bishop's communication, dated 28.06.2013.

Hence, I am not inclined to revoke the order of suspension and the order is extended for the further period of two years with effect from today (10.01.2018).”

53. A bare perusal of the above letter, it is crystal clear that the respondents have not extended the suspension on or after 28.06.2014, and by the above order, extended the suspension for the further period of two years with effect from today (10.01.2018) and that too, there was no necessity to extend the order of suspension after four years, all of sudden, except the fact that the appeals are coming final disposal on 11.01.2018.

54. Since there has been no order continuing the suspension, the learned counsel for the first respondent has also not disputed the fact that the petitioners have not been removed as members of the said Church. It is also to be noted that the suspension order dated 28.06.2013 has not been extended subsequently and the petitioners were also not removed from the membership of the Church. Therefore, as the suspension order stood dissolved after 28.06.2014, the rights and benefits which the petitioners are entitled to cannot be denied to them after 28.06.2014.

55. It is also to be noted that this Court vide order dated 11.01.2018, directed the respondents to print the names of the petitioners and their spouses in the Cathedral Church pew sheets on auspicious days, such as birthdays and wedding anniversaries. However, it is stated in the petition that when the first petitioner and his wife wedding anniversary came up on 21.10.2018, their names have been wantonly omitted in the pew sheet. Further, a perusal of pew sheet, dated 14.07.2019, it could be seen that the first petitioner's name has been printed as suspended member.

56. The suspension order dated 28.06.2013, expired on 28.06.2014 itself and thereafter, no further extension was made for more than four years. Even assuming that the respondents were not aware of the judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018, made in the appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 305 to 308 of 2017, exactly one day prior to the judgment when the matter was taken up for hearing on 10.01.2018, the learned counsel for the respondents could have informed the Court about the letter dated 10.01.2018 extending the suspension of the petitioners for two years. However, on 10.01.2018, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties this Court adjourned the matter to 11.01.2018 for passing orders. If at all the suspension order was passed on 10.01.2018 itself, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 11.01.2018, either the respondents or the counsel for the respondents might have informed the Court about the passing of the suspension order by the second respondent on 10.01.2018. On 11.01.2018, when this Court took up the appeals for disposal, learned counsel on either side appeared before this Court and argued the matter, however the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not informed anything about the passing of the suspension order on 10.01.2018 against the petitioners and thereafter this Court disposed of the appeals giving certain directions to the respondents as indicated above. Thus, if at all extension of the suspension order was passed on 10.01.2018, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would have definitely informed the Court either on 10.01.2018 when the matter was taken up for further hearing or on 11.01.2018 when this Court pronounced its judgment.

57. Therefore, it clearly shows that the respondents have not passed the extension of suspension order on 10.01.2018. Even assuming that after four years, without giving any intimation, all of a sudden when the respondents came to know that the appeals were posted for orders, they passed the extension order, which is deliberate and even otherwise it is to avoid the action of this Court, shows the intention of the respondents.

58. The respondents without following the directions of this Court have willfully disobeyed the judgment of this Court and further they have also in order to frustrate the judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018, prepared the letter extending the suspension and tried to portray as if they have issued it prior to the date of judgment of this Court, which clearly shows the intention of the respondents.

59. The learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant has cited catena of decisions. There is no quarrel over the principles laid down therein, but in the considered view of this case, the discussions referred supra, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents in the contempt petition, have no application to the facts of this case.

60. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed before this Court and the directions issued by this Court in the appeals and the subsequent conduct of the respondents, we are of the considered view that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the judgment of this Court and therefore we hold that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court. In view of our said conclusion, the respondents are liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

61. In the result,

(i) The Review Applications in Review Application Nos. 117 to 120 are dismissed.

(ii) The Contempt Petition No. 1135 of 2019 is allowed and we hold that the respondents/Rev.S. Immanuel Devakadatcham, Rt. Rev.Dr. J. George Stephen, Rev.Y.L. Babu Rao are guilty of contempt of this Court and therefore the respondents shall undergo three months simple imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 1,500/- each, in default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

62. However, there shall be no order as to costs.