IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR ~[FU^'. Civil Revision No, 11 /(Sb^ 2&11 APPLICANT Defendant \:. ..v^ ^-^•^^^ &^^^ ^^^^ Dayalu Mirdha, Son of Tokel Mirdha, aged 45 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Village Village Ektal, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.), VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS Plaintiffs ."' ^-1. Shri Jagannath Mandir Ektal, Through : Muniram Patel Son of Shambhu Rara Patel, aged 66 years, Occupation Agriculturist, President Shri Jagannath Mandir Seva Samitee Village Ektal, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.), 2/ Shravan Kumar Hota Son of Kalachand Hota, aged 56 years, Occupation Agriculturist, Secretary, Shri Jagannath Mandir Seva Saraitee Village Ektal, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.), Smt. Manjulata Sinha, wife of Kamlesh Prasad Sinha, aged 52 years, R/o. Chhote Atarmuda, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), 4. Balkishan Kedia Son of Jagdish Prasad Kelia, aged 43 years, R/o. Savitri Nagar Kotara Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3, ./ ,5. Suresh Kumar Agrawal Son of Tuhi Ram Agrawal, aged 48 years, R/o. Village Jagatpur, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), % 6. 7. Anil Kum.ar Agrawal, Son of Mohan Lal Agrawal, aged 32 years, R/o. Gourishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through :. The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT QF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISIONNo. 11/2011 APPLICANT Dayalu Mirdha Versus NON-APPLICANTS Shri Jagannath Mandir Ektal and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Smt. Hameeda Siddiqui, Advocate, for applicant. Shri G.D. Vaswani Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (25-1-2011) : 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. On due consideration of the grounds taken, I am satisfied that the applicant has succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing the revision. Therefore, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 3. Heard. 4. Legality and propriety of the order dated 13-5-2010 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 8- A/2009 is under assail in this petition. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that non-applicant No; 1 and one Shrawan Kumar Hota, Secretary of Shri Jagannath Mandir Ektal have filed a suit against the defendants. One application under Order 1 Rule VIII of Code of Civil Procedure was also filed for treating the above suit as filed in the representative capacity. Learned trial court after giying a finding that any devotee of the temple has the right to file a suit and since the property of temple is in dispute, allowed the application under Order 1 Rule VIII of the Code. e^-,-, i{ -"•^ A-»-sssi' 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the plaintiffs have filed the suit in the capacity of office bearers of the trust and not in the representative capacity and the application preferred by them is for permission to file the suit on behalf of the trust and, therefore, the order passed is patently illegal. 7. I have perused the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule VIII of the Code which shows that Shri Jagannath Mandir Ektal is a registered body but they want to file the suit in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule VIII of the Code. This application does not show fhat they want to file the suit on behalf of the trust. 8. After carefully reading the impugned order passed by the court below, I do not find any scope of interference in the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Managing Director (SSIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Bangalore Hyderabad and another -v- Ajit Prasad Tarway reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 has observed in para 5 of its judgment as under:- "5. In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the Erst appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the Brst appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law, but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. Thaf'being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code." 10. The revision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby disraissed at admission stage. <:<01' .^f ^w^ ^