This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Distt. Judge Srinagar dated 6-5-64 where by he has dismissed an appeal against the order of First Additional Munsiff Srinagar dated 16-11-63. The First Additional Munsiff had returned the plaint of the petitioners for presentation to the proper court as in his opinion the suit was not competent under the provisions of S. 92 Civil P. C. and further held that the suit should have been brought in the court of the District Judge. This order of the First Additional Munsiff was upheld by the learned District Judge. It is against this order that this revision has been filed by the petitioners.

Two gentleman, Sh. Arjun Nath and Radha Krishan, petitioners before me, had brought a suit for declaration against two persons Jia Lal Ganju (since deceased whose legal representatives have been brought on record) and Jia Lal Khushoo praying for various reliefs which shall be mentioned presently. The suit of the plaintiffs was that at Narsingarh Srinagar there exists a temple known as Mandir Khakchowk-a public temple and a religious place of worship for all Hindus of Srinagar. The plaintiffs are also Hindus and are interested in the worship of Lord Shiva which is installed at the Mandir. They had evinced deep interest in the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. The plaint proceeded to state that defendant 1 Jia Lal had managed to get himself called as the Pujari or the Mahant of the shrine. He was neigther a Pujari nor a Mahant. There were some land acquisition proceedings. In those proceedings there was a compromise and by means of that compromise Rs. 10,000 were kept with defendant 2. A sum of Rs. 33500 which was lying in deposit with the Collector was to be got by defendant 1. The plaint is a long one but portions relevant to the disposal of this petition alone have been mentioned. The reliefs claimed were :

(a) That defendant 1 is neither a Pujari nor a Mohtimim of the Mandir Khak Chowk.

(b) That the sum of Rs 33500 lying in deposit with the Collector Srinagar is the pro-perty of the deity at Mandir Khak Chowk.

(c) That the defendant No. 2 has no right to keep the money in fixed deposit in the Punjab National Bank in his own name and to deal with it in any manner whatsoever.

(d) That the owner of Rs. 10,000 standing in the name of defendant 2 is the deity at Khakchowk.

(e) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the properties of the temple and in particular with the sums as shown in (b) and(d).

(f) For accounts with costs be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Any other relief which the court declares the plaintiff entitled to may also be granted.

An objection was taken by the defendants that the suit was not competent became the petitioners plaintiffs had not secured the consent in writing of the Dy. Commr. to institute the suit and therefore the suit was barred under the provisions of S. 92 of the Civil P. C.. and further that the proper court to entertain such a suit was the principal civil court of original jurisdiction or any other court empowered in that behalf by the Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or a part of the trust was situate. It is conceded that the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in this case is the court of the District Judge Srinagar. This plea of the defendants was upheld and the suit returned for presentation to the proper court by the trial court. The appellate court having upheld this order of the trial court, the present revision is sought to set aside the orders passed by the lower courts.

It is not disputed that the suit has been brought without the consent in writing of the Dy. Commr. concerned. Mr. S. Kaul appearing for the petitioners has addressed very elaborate and along arguments in this case. I have considered the arguments of the learned cousel for either side and have given my serious consideration to the matter in dispute between the parties.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document