AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N S Gowda, J
By the impugned order, the Trial Court has restrained the defendants/appellants herein from giving effect to the resolution 'CX.383/2018-21: Synod Matter-Enquiry report' dated 19.07.2021 pending disposal of the suit.
The Trial Court has further restrained the defendants/appellants from preventing the plaintiff from exercising his vote or from contesting any of the Elections of the area councils, elections at the Triennial councils and/or any other elections conducted by or with respect to the 4th and 5th defendants, except in respect of the election which prohibits him from contesting in the election under Chapter- VII Rule 12(E) of the Constitution of 5th defendant, pending disposal of the suit.
Thus, by the interim order, all that has been done by the Trial Court is to permit the plaintiff to exercise his vote and from contesting the elections. This interim order, in my view, does not prejudice the appellants, in any manner. If the plaintiff is permitted to participate in the electoral process, no harm or prejudice would be caused to the appellants since the right to participate in an election is an elementary right available to a member of an organization governed by its rules.
Sri B.M.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Trial Court has not made it clear as to whether the Returning Officer could reject the application, if the plaintiff was otherwise ineligible.
Miss Sanjana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that it is always open for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper, if, as a matter of fact, there is any ineligibility surrounding the candidature of the plaintiff. She also submits that the plaintiff does not suffer from any disqualification and is entitled to contest the election.
In view of the fact that both the parties are in agreement that the nomination paper of the plaintiff can be considered in accordance with the Constitution of the Church of South India, 2016 and in accordance with law, the interim order granted by the Trial Court does not, in any way, prejudices either of them. I, therefore, find no reason to entertain this appeal and the appeal is rejected subject, however, to the observation made above.