Agreed tenure prevails over retirement age, and representative suits against unincorporated bodies require mandatory procedure.

A bishop's tenure was governed by the ten-year term accepted at appointment and confirmed by the Synod; the constitutional retirement age could not override that agreed term, so continuation until 65 was rejected. A suit against unincorporated church bodies was also held not maintainable because the mandatory representative procedure under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not followed, and no permission had been obtained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff bishop's tenure was governed by the constitutional retirement age or by the agreed term of ten years; (ii) Whether the suit against unincorporated church bodies was maintainable without permission under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff bishop's tenure was governed by the constitutional retirement age or by the agreed term of ten years.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme provided that a bishop would remain in office until resignation, transfer, deprivation of charge, incapacity, or retirement on completion of the 65th year. At the same time, the contemporaneous records showed that the Selection Board restricted the appointment to ten years on health-related considerations, the plaintiff accepted that arrangement, and the Synod confirmed the appointment on that basis. The later reliance on the retirement-age clause could not override the accepted and confirmed tenure fixed for the appointment.

Conclusion: The plaintiff could not claim continuation as bishop till the age of 65 on the facts of the appointment; the ten-year tenure governed the appointment.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit against unincorporated church bodies was maintainable without permission under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The defendants included unincorporated bodies representing the church community, and a representative proceeding against such bodies required compliance with Order I Rule 8. No permission had been obtained or granted, and the mandatory procedural requirement was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable for want of compliance with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The common order of the Single Judge was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the plaintiff was left to continue only as caretaker bishop until a fresh appointment was made by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutionally prescribed retirement age does not prevail over a tenure expressly fixed and accepted at the time of appointment, and a representative suit against an unincorporated body is not maintainable unless the mandatory procedure under Order I Rule 8 is followed.

---