ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order dated 03.03.2017 made in I.A. No. 194 of 2016 in O.S. No. 200 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal thereby dismissing the petition for rejection of plaint.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 8 and the respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S. No. 200 of 2015 for a declaration that the suit temple is a public temple and consequential injunction from interfering with the administration and also performing poojas on the suit temple by the officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. They also sought for injunction as against the petitioners herein not to restrain the public from worshipping the God and also restraining them from doing administration and performing poojas as their own temple. Therefore, the petitioners filed a petition in I.A. No. 194 of 2016 for rejection of plaint on the ground that Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department shall alone have power to inquire into and to decide whether the suit temple is a public or a private temple. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 108 of the Act.

3. The Court below dismissed the petition in I.A. No. 194 of 2016 for the reason that the petitioners herein not denied that the temple under the management and possession of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Therefore, the suit temple is assumed that it is a Public temple. The right of the respondents 1 to 3 herein are civil in nature and as such the suit is very much maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit temple was constructed by donation collected from the people of NGGO Colony and respondents 1 to 3 herein have no right to claim to obstruct the performance of poojas and conducting festivals in the suit temple by the petitioners and people of NGGO Colony. At the same time, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot have any objection to manage and administer the suit temple by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that admittedly, the respondents 1 to 3 filed suit for declaration declaring that the suit temple is a public temple and also framed decree of permanent injunction. It is not maintainable as per Section 63(a) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department shall alone have power to inquire into and to decide whether the suit temple is a public or a private temple. He further submitted that it is barred under Section 108 of the Act from filing suit to decide the issue of public or private temple. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of this Court in Inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E. Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil, Dharapuram vs. Amirthammal, (2003) 1 MLJ 435 and P.K. Vasudevan Pillai vs. Manikandan Nair, (2011) 1 CTC 55.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the suit temple is a public temple. Now, the respondents 1 to 3 are prevented by the petitioners to worship the suit temple. Admittedly, the suit temple is administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and as such, it can be construed as a public temple and all are having equal rights to worship the suit temple. When there is a dispute in respect of worshipping the temple and performing poojas, this right is a civil in nature and it can be agitated before the Civil Court. Since the Civil Court only has got jurisdiction to try the issue in respect the civil rights. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition for plaint and prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition.

6. Heard Mr. R. Thirugnanam, lear