JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 29.5.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kherwada, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the Court below has erred in passing the impugned order and rejecting petitioners' prayer to issue notice only to the defendants nos. 1 to 6.

2. Narrated in nut shell, the facts appertain to the present writ petition are that a representative suit, as provided under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be filed seeking declaration that 'Rishabhdev Jain Temple', also known as 'Keshariya Nathji Jain Temple' is a 'Shwetambar' Jain Temple. Apart from such declaration, other ancillary reliefs were also claimed by the petitioners who converged as plaintiffs while impleading respondents nos. 1 to 8 as defendants.

3. An application for leave of the Court as required under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed alongwith an application seeking service of notice by way of public advertisement. In pursuance of these applications, an order came to be passed by the trial Court on 22.5.2019, whereby leave to maintain the suit was granted. It was also ordered that one notice be published in a newspaper having nationwide circulation and another in Rajasthan Patrika/Dainik Bhaskar having its circulation in the State.

4. Consequent to the order dated 29.5.2019, a notice was prepared by the Court concerned, inter alia, inviting all the persons having interest in the subject matter, cause of action and reliefs sought in the suit. It is noteworthy that the proposed notice prepared for publication in terms of the order dated 29.5.2019, contained not only the names of all the plaintiffs and the defendants, but also the reliefs claimed and a short description of the dispute/issue involved. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant extract of the order dated 29.5.2019 and the contentious part of the notice, feeling aggrieved whereof, the petitioners have approached this Court:

^^oknhx.k vius [kpsZ ij vkns'k 01 fu;e 08 lhŒihŒlhŒ ds rgr okn dh fo"k;oLrq] okndkj.k ,oa vuqrks"k ds lEcU/k esa fgr j[kus okys lHkh fgr /kkjdksa dks uksfVl Ádk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ,d ekg esa viuk i{k U;k;ky; esa j[kus dk volj ds ckcr ,d uksfVl jk"Vªh; Lrj ds nSfud lekpkj i= esa rFkk ,d uksfVl jktLFkku jkT; Lrj mn;iqj ds _"kHknso {ks= ds fy;s Hkh Ádkf'kr gksus okys nSfud lekpkj i= ;Fkk jktLFkku if=dk@nSfud HkkLdj esa Ádkf'kr djok;sA mDr vkns'k dh ikyuk ds v/;k/khu ;g okn ntZ jftLVj bZOrnk;h nhokuh gksA**

Extract of the notice under Order I Rule 8 CPC:

^^;g U;k;ky; tkŒnhŒ vkns'k 1 fu;e 8 lhŒihŒlhŒ ds rgr okn dh fo"k;oLrq okn dkj.k ,oa vuqrks"k ds laca/k esa fgr j[kus okys lHkh fgr/kkjdksa dks bl uksfVl ds Ádk'ku dh frfFk ls 1 ekg ds Hkhrj viuk i{k@mRrj bl U;k;ky; esa djus dk volj nsrh gSA bl okn dh lquokbZ dh vxyh frfFk 26-07-2019 gSA**

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners oppugning the highlighted part of the notice under Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure contended that the Court below has erred in preparing the notice in the manner it has been done and inviting all the persons, irrespective of the fact whether they are defendants or not.

6. Mr. LR Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner narrating the chronological events submitted that Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its judgment reported in (1974) SCC 500 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sajjan Lal Punjawal) and in (2007) 10 SCC 528 (Deewan Singh Vs. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi) has already settled the core issue and held that the Temple in question is a Jain temple and not Hindu temple, as had been alleged by the Devsthan Department and the sects other than Jains. Inviting attention of the Court towards the order dated 26.7.2010, Mr. Mehta pointed out that Hon