Supreme Court: While Absence Of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC Is Curable Defect, Its Compliance Remains Crucial To Ensure Enforceability & Representative Effect Of Orders Passed

The Supreme Court observed that while the absence of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is a curable defect, its compliance remains crucial to ensure the enforceability and representative effect of the Orders passed.

The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals filed against the Orders of the Madras High Court, which declared re-election of all the office bearers since it was held that the electoral college itself was flawed and appointed committee of administrators to conduct re-elections.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “This Court is of the considered opinion that the position of law regarding the applicability of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC is well settled. Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not prescribe any stage at which the application can be filed.5 While it is not a mandatory pre condition for the institution of a suit or for the granting of interim relief, it is a procedural requirement that cannot be disregarded altogether which bears upon the binding nature of any orders issued. Therefore, while the absence of Order 1 Rule 8 is a curable defect, its compliance remains crucial to ensure the enforceability and representative effect of the orders passed.”

The Bench added that leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC may be obtained at any stage of the proceedings.

Senior Advocates V. Prakash and Shoeb Alam represented the Appellants while Senior Advocates Liz Mathew, Raghenth Basant, J. Prabhakar, and V. Prabhakar represented the Respondents.

Case Background

Four Civil Suits were filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Section 92 of the CPC along with Interim Applications seeking interim reliefs. The Single Bench passed various Orders which were challenged before the Division Bench. The High Court held that the amendments to the bye-laws had not been carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Constitution of Church of South India (CSI) and it was further held that the Special Meeting of the Synod held in March 2022 was not duly convened. Resultantly, the Petitioners approached the Apex Court.

The Suits were related to the management and administration of the CSI, an unregistered body of persons which is in-charge of the functions of the protestant Churches in Southern India and in Sri Lanka. This un-registered body of persons christened as CSI came into existence in September 1947 and it is governed by a set of Rules that is called the Constitution of the CSI. The Plaintiffs were six members of the Church and the dispute arose when the Defendant was elected as a Moderator in the election held in 2020. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant is accused of several criminal offences and almost ten FIRs are pending against him on the date of his nomination as the Moderator.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, remarked, “… large numbers of the members attended the Special Meeting of the Synod and therefore the meeting cannot be said to have been conducted without notice. Therefore, it can prima facie be established that the Special Meeting of the Synod on 07.03.2022 was duly convened.”

Furthermore, the Court refused to interfere with the findings of the Single Judge with regards to the validity of the amendments to the Constitution and the Bye-Laws of the CSI which are governed under Chapter XIII of the CSI Constitution under Rule 2 and Rule 3.

“In consequence thereof, the findings of the learned Division Bench regarding the validity of the amendments to the bye-laws are hereby set aside”, it ordered.

The Court noted that even after considering the amendment to the Constitution by which the age limit for retirement was increased to 70 years, the said amendment is not enforceable since the same was not duly ratified which makes the said amendment by which the age limit was increased as invalid.

“… the election of the Moderator is said to have been tainted, thereby affecting its validity. … Consequently, the elections conducted for the other office bearers—namely, the Deputy Moderator, the General Secretary, and the Treasurer—shall be deemed valid and will continue to hold legal sanctity but will be subject to the outcome of the suits”, it held.

The Court was of the view that since the election of the Moderator is declared as invalid and it is not in the interest of 4.5 million members of the CSI that the institution functions without a Moderator until the final disposal of the Suit.

“Moreover, the records indicate that the office bearers rushed the amendment process, despite the bye-law allowing two years for ratification by diocesan councils. This suggests they aimed to pass the amendments before the 2023 2026 elections. These facts warrant appointing an election officer to conduct the Moderator’s election for that term. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding the appointment and role of retired High Court judge in the election process is sustained”, it added.

The Court also emphasised that until the leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is formally granted, the Orders passed from the proceedings may not be considered binding upon the entirety of the membership of the CSI.

“Accordingly, we concur with the findings of the learned Division Bench passed in O.S.A. Nos. 236, 237 and 238 of 2023, insofar as it has been held that, in the absence of any application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC before the learned Court— and in view of the fact that the application, if any, was subsequently withdrawn which was filed in C.S. No. 274/2022, the aforesaid appeals filed against the interim order cannot be sustained and therefore, are dismissed”, it further observed.

The Court reiterated that grant of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 is not prerequisite for grant of interim reliefs since the permission under the said Rule can be granted at any stage of the proceedings.

“… there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from giving effect to the resolution passed in the meeting convened on 7th and 8th March 2022, concerning the fixation of the upper age for the Bishops and tenure of the elected members until the final disposal of the pending suits”, it directed.

The Court, therefore, concluded by recognising that the power to amend the CSI Constitution rests with the Synod.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals.

Cause Title- Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 622)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates V. Prakash, Shoeb Alam, AORs Mandeep Kalra, Kailas Bajirao Autade, A. Lakshminarayanan, Vairawan A.S., Pranjal Kishore, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Advocates Ajith Williyam S, T.R.K. Kumarasingh, and Adrian D. Rozario.

Respondents: Senior Advocates Liz Mathew, Raghenth Basant, J. Prabhakar, V. Prabhakar, AORs Pranav Sachdeva, Astha Tyagi, P. S. Sudheer, Vairawan A.S, Ranu Purohit, Rakesh K. Sharma, Manish Tiwari, Pranjal Kishore, Shyam Gopal, Shwetank Sailakwal, Radha Shyam Jena, Ruchi Gupta, Manu Srinath, E. R. Sumathy, Pai Amit, Usha Nandini V., Goutham Shivshankar, Advocates Jatin Bhardwaj, Vineet Subramani, Azhar Assees, Reginald Valsalan, M.P. Srivignesh, and Shantanu Singh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment