elected as State Overseer and it was approved by the governing body evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. This court is not going into the question as to whether he is entitled to represent the church or not. It is after the election that CMA.No.8/2016 was filed and injunction application, IA.No.271/2016, has been moved as Ext.P6, in which in paragraph-18 it was mentioned that it is reliably learnt that if the illegally elected persons assume charge of the State Overseer of the 1st defendant, he will definitely tamper evidence for the purpose of justifying his election and the prayer in the injunction petition was to restrain the second defendant from handing over the charge of the State Overseer of the first respondent till the disposal of the CM. Appeal. So it is clear from this that even at the time when the injunction application was filed, the petitioner in that application was aware of the fact that somebody else was elected as the State Overseer and that was the reason why he wanted the second defendant not to hand over the charge to the newly elected person . Further it is seen from the final order passed, namely Ext.P8, that respondents 1 to 4 remained absent. That was the reason why the interim injunction granted as per Ext.P7 was made absolute. If really the second respondent was interested in protecting the interest of the petitioner church, he would have entered appearance and informed the matter of conduct of the election and selection of
