Devan Ramachandran, J. - The defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.554 of 2019, on the files of the Munsiffs Court, Thiruvalla, have approached this Court seeking that the said Suit be transferred to the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, before which two other Suits - allegedly on the same cause of action and same subject-matter - namely, O.S.554/2019 and O.S.2/2020 are still pending.

2. According to the petitioners, the issues in the afore three Suits relate to the Malankara Suriani Knanaya Samudayam (hereinafter referred to as Samudayam), which is an endogamous group of Syrian Christian Community and in particular to the management and control of its constituent Churches. They concede that the Church involved in the two Suits pending before the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam are different from the one involved in the Suit sought to be transferred; but that they are all constituents of the Samudayam; and therefore, governed and controlled by the same Constitution, namely, that of the year 2003 and the year 2013. They contend that since the factual and legal issues involved in the Suit before the Munsiffs Court, Thiruvalla is essentially the same as those now pending consideration of the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, it is only in the interest of justice that it be transferred to the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, so that all of them can be heard and decided together, if not jointly.

3. I have heard Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri.K.Jayakumar, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Sabu George, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.G.S.Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

4. As I have indicated above, the crux of the submissions of the petitioners, as voiced by their learned Senior counsel Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, is that the issues and prayers in the Suit sought to be transferred are similar, if not identical, to the ones impelled in the two Suits pending before the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam. I notice that the plaint in the Suit which is sought to be transferred from the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam - namely, O.S.No.554 of 2019 - has been produced as Annexure-I along with this petition; while the Suits pending before the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam - namely, O.S.Nos.506 of 2013 and 2 of 2020 - have been produced as Annexures II and III respectively. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the Suits in the manner they are marked in this petition hereinafter.

5. The prayers in Annexure-I Suit pending before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla and those in Annexure-II and Annexure-III pending before the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, are as under :

O.S.554 of 2019

(a).Issue a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 3 to 5 from implementing the Patriarchal Kalpana No.EI.82/19 dated 13th December, 2019 in any from whatsoever.

(b).Allow the plaintiffs to realise the cost of this suit from the defendants.

O.S.506 of 2013

(a).To declare that defendants 1 to 3 are not having any right or authority to call for the meeting of 1st defendant association without permission from 5th defendant and that they have violated clause 124 of the Bhadrasana Constitution.

(b).To declare that the defendants 1 to 3 have no authority to amend the Constitution of the Bhadrasana as proposed in the draft Constitution Amendment Memorandum appended along with the plaint, and to declare it as illegal, void and outcome of abuse of authority and beyond the jurisdiction of 1st defendant, Association, in view of clause 98B of the Bhadrasana Constitution.

O.S.2 of 2020

(A).Declaring that the Bull bearing No.EL.82/19 dated 13.12.2019 issued by the Holy Patriarch of Antioch as null and void and unenforceable, being against the basic structure of the Constitution of the Malankara Suriyani Knanaya Samudayam.

(B).Restraining the defendants by a permanent prohibitory injunction, from implementing the Bull bearing number EL.82/19 dated 13.12.2019 promulgated by the Holy Patriarch of Antioch or any part thereof and from taking any action against the provisions of the Constituion of the Knanaya Samudayam, as it stood in the year 2003, unless and until the same is legally and validly amended, as per the provisions of the Constituion, without affecting the basic structure of the same.

(C).Allowing the plaintiffs to realize the cost of the suit from the contesting defendants.

6. Ex facie, it is perspicuous that the prayers in Annexure-III Suit seek a declaration that Bull number EI.82/19 issued by the Patriarch of Antioch be declared to be null and void; while the prayer in Annexure-I is for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the implementation of the said Bull in any form whatsoever. There can, therefore, be little doubt that the prayers in Annexure-III are larger than the prayers sought for in Annexure-I; and that, consequently, if AnnexureIII is disposed of, then Annexure-I would have to follow Suit.

7. Of course, the axiomatic argument would certainly be that Annexure-I is filed earlier in time; and therefore that a prayer could have been sought only for transfer of Annexure-III Suit from the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, to the Munsiffs Court, Thiruvalla, where the former Suit is still pending. In fact, this is one of the submissions made before me by the learned senior counsel, Sri.K.Jayakumar and the learned counsel, Sri.G.S.Reghunath. However, I cannot find favour with this because, when I go through Annexure-II Suit, it is obvious that it was filed as early as in the year 2013 and I am also told by both sides that certain proceedings therefrom had reached the Honble Supreme Court and that the passing of final judgment in the said Suit had been stayed by it.

8. Be that as it may, as is clear from Annexure-II Suit, the amendments made to the 2003 and 2013 Constitution of the Samudayam are under challenge therein. It is also indubitable that the submissions of Sri.K.Jayakumar, learned senior counsel and that of Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel, is that the prayers made in Annexure-I and Annexure-III Suits are totally different and distinct from those made in Annexure-II Suit, because the Bull, which is challenged in the former two Suits, is in conflict with the Constitution of the Samudayam, be that the original or the amended. They, therefore, say that the consideration of the validity of the Bull impugned in Annexure-I and Annexure-III Suits is to be made independent of the consideration of the vives of the amendment of the Constitution of the Samudayam, which is the germane issue in Anneuxre-II Suit; and consequently, that the subject-matters in them can never be construed to be the same.

9. Even though I find substantial force in the submissions of the learned senior counsel Sri.K.Jayakumar and Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel, on the afore lines, the fact remains that the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, has already commenced trial in Annexure-II Suit but has not delivered judgment because the Honble Supreme Court has interdicted it. Therefore, it is obvious that the larger issues with respect to the Constitution of the Samudayam and its amendments are already in the seizin of the learned Munsiffs Court, Kottayam; and obviously therefore, the legal worth and validity of the Bull, which was issued by the Patriarch of Antioch on 13th December, 2019, can be effectively and comprehensively dealt with by that Court.

10. Hence, even when I find favour with the submissions made by Sri.K.Jayakumar and Sri.G.S.Reghunath, that the subject-matter of Annexure-I and Annexure-III Suits are different from the specific subject-matter in Annexure-II Suit, I cannot see why these Suits be not considered by the same Court, since it will only assist it in having a panoptic view of the whole issue, thus facilitating an exhaustive decision on the various facts and circumstances involved therein.

11. I am, therefore, of the view that even though the subject-matters in Anneuxre-I and Annexure-III Suits may not be exactly the same as the subjectmatter in Annexure-II Suit, it will only be in the best interest and administration of justice that all the three Suits are decided by the same Court, so that all the relevant issues and aspects can be projected by the parties in a more effective manner before it - which is already in seizin of the larger issues - rather than allowing other Courts to hear pleas for injunction against the Bull, which may certainly have the effect of causing multiplicity of orders, even conflicting ones.

12. Resultantly and in the conspectus of the above, I see no reason why O.S.554 of 2019 must continue to be heard by the Munsiffs Court, Thiruvalla, when O.S.2 of 2020 and O.S.506 of 2013 are concededly being heard by the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam. By doing so, not merely would there be no prejudice to the parties, but it would be their benefit also, because if all the three matters are heard by one Court, it certainly will be in a better position to decide all the issues; rather than other several Courts being burdened to take separate decisions, which certainly has the potential to lead to greater confusion.

13. Before I conclude, I must also record that when this matter was considered by me on 13th January, 2020, it had been brought to my notice that one of the reasons why the transfer of the Suit in question was being opposed was because an application for interim injunction had already been heard by the said Court and orders had been reserved. I, consequently, had indited an order on that day directing the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, to issue orders on I.A.3632 of 2019; and I am told today by the counsel on both sides that the said Court has issued orders granting an interim injunction against the Bull which is impugned. I, therefore, cannot find any reason at this stage for the respondents to oppose the transfer of the Suit to the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, particularly when there are no allegations against the said Court; and in fact, they concede that the said Court is equally competent to hear all the three Suits.

14. In the afore circumstances and solely for the reasons above, I allow this case and order that O.S.554 of 2019, now pending before the Munsiffs Court, Thiruvalla, will be transferred, to be tried and disposed of by the 1st Additional Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, before which O.S.Nos.506/2013 and 2/2020 are already pending for final disposal.

15. In order to facilitate these directions, the parties herein will mark appearance before the 1st Additional Munsiffs Court, Kottayam, on 16.3.2020.

16. In the nature of the factual circumstances noticed in this case, I deem it appropriate not to make any order as to costs and to thus direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.