1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors. Vs. Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.4 Jaipur City, Jaipur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9035/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order :- 16th July, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.R.K. Daga, for the petitioner. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.03.2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.4 Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners' that the respondent Nos.2 & 3, namely Lalit Mohan Sharma and Uttam Kumar Sharma, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. According to them, their ancestor had constructed a temple dedicated to Goddess Sheetala Mata, Lord Mahadev, Lord Hanuman and Lord Ganesh. They claim that the temple belongs to them. They further claim that the temple is as old as 150 years. Therefore, it requires certain repair and reconstruction for the purpose of maintenance. However, they claim that while carrying out the repair and maintenance, the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur may interfere with the said maintenance work. Therefore, the suit for perpetual injunction against the Corporation. The petitioners 2 claim to be residents of the area where the said temple is situated. Since they were of the opinion that any construction or maintenance may adversely affect their interest, they filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. However, vide order dated 26.03.2010, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. R.K. Daga, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the petitioners happen to be the residents of the locality where the temple is situated. He further contends that the temple does not belong to the family of the respondent Nos.2 & 3, but is a public temple. Moreover, in the garb of filing of the suit, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 are, in fact, trying to have the temple declared as the private property. Furthermore, the respondent No.2 is plaining to demolish the “Shikhar” of the temple in the garb of repair and maintenance. Therefore, the interest of the petitioners, who are regular worshipers at the temple, is being adversely affected. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for dismissing the application. The learned Magistrate has noted that the petitioners have neither been able to make out any case with regard to the title to the temple, nor as to how their interest would be adversely affected if the temple were to be repaired. The grievance of the petitioners, therefore, seems to be based more on apprehension than 3 on any legal basis. Since the learned Magistrate has threadbare discussed the issues raised by the petitioners, this Court does not find perversity or any illegality in the impugned order dated 26.03.2010. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-