( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision no. 633 of 1978 (Beesa Porwal Jain Shwetamber Teerth Sagodhia Registered public Trust, Ratlam and Ors. v. Poonamchand and Ors.), as the main question involved in both the revisions is identical.

( 2. ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 24-4-1978, whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the applications submitted by the plaintiff-non-applicants 1, 2 and 3, one under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), Civil Procedure code for deletion of the Registrar of Public Trust from the array of defendants and the other under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code seeking permission of the Court to sue for the benefit of all persons belonging to Shwetamber moorti Pujak Jain Samaj of Ratlam, have been allowed. The other revision no. 633 of 1978, is directed against the order dated 24-4-1978, whereby issues nos. 1 to 6 have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

( 3. ) NO exhaustive statement of facts is necessary for the decision of these revisions. Suffice it to state that in the suit as instituted the Registrar of Public Trust, district Ratlam, was also impleaded as a defendant. The suit was brought for challenging the findings recorded by the Registrar under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) in his order dated 31-3-1975, registering the Trust in the name of the Beesa porwal Jain Shwetamber Teerth Sagodhia Registered Public Trust Board, ratlam, on cause of action laid in details in the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed the relief of declaration inter alia to the effect that the aforesaid findings deserve to be set aside and the Trust in question as well as the entire property belonging to it deserve to be declared as that of Shwetamber Moorti Pujak jain Samaj, Ratlam. The plaintiff-non-applicants I, 2 and 3 also submitted an application under Order I, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code for grant of permission to sue in representative capacity.

( 4. ) THE defendant-applicants-herein as well as the defendants 4, 5 and 6 resisted the claim of the plaintiffs inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiffs are not entitled to grant of permission under Order 1, Rule 8; that in absence of notice under section 80 (1) to the Registrar of Public Trust, the suit is not maintainable; that the plaintiffs have no right to sue; that the suit as framed is not maintainable; that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that the Court-fees paid on the relief claimed is inadequate and that the suit is time barred.

( 5. ) FACED with this situation the plaintiffs submitted an application under Order I, Rule 10 (2), Civil Procedure Code praying for deletion of the registrar of Public Trust from the array of defendants on the ground that his impleadment is not necessary.

( 6. ) NOW, the Court has granted by the order, which has been challenged in this revision, the applications submitted by the plaintiffs under Order 1, rule 8 and under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), Civil Procedure Code and by the other order, which has been challenged in the other revision, issues 1 to 6, which were framed by the Court in the light of the aforesaid objections raised by the defendant-applicants, have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

( 7. ) IN this revision it was contended by Shri M. L. Dhupar, learned counsel for the applicants that (a) the impugned orders have been passed by the Civil Court prior to issuance of notice to the State Government through the Registrar of Public Trust. Accordingly, they are without jurisdiction, and (b) that on merits the impugned orders are contrary to law and without jurisdiction.

( 8. ) S. L. Garg, learned counsel for the non-applicants argued in support of the impugned orders. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that these revisions deserve to be allowed.

( 9. ) SECTION 8 of the Act reads as under :-

"section 8. Civil Suit against the finding of the Registrar- (I) Any working trustee