IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 1.S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.186/2006 Agarewal Khandelwal Dharamshala & Ors. Vs. Public at large & Ors. 2.S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.187/2006 Agarwal Khandelwal Dharamshala & Anr. Vs. Public at large & Ors. 3.S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.188/2006 Agarwal Khandelal Dharamshala & Anr. Vs. Rameshwar 28.5.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri M.M. Ranjan, for the petitioners. Shri H.K. Sharma } Shri D.K. Dixit }, for the respondents. These three revision petitions have been filed by the defendant Trust against the impugned order by which the application filed by the defendant under order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned trial court. Three separate suits were filed, one by the plaintiffs being the Pujari and two suits by the Aam Janta. In one suit by Aam Janta and the Pujari the cause of action is on account of the advertisement issued by the defendant petitioner Trust for appointment of Pujari and the third suit has been filed by the Aam Janta is in respect of the cause of action against the plaintiff for not being permitted to utilized and take shelter in the Verandah of the property of the Trust as was being done by them prior to the closure of the Verandah by the defendant Trust (petitioner) etc and injunction in that behalf. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The learned trial court while deciding the application under order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. in respect of the two suits filed by the Pujari and the Aam Jantga had noted the fact that the Pujari who is the plaintiff has claimed his right of Seva Puja which is a civil right as being an ancestral right being the son and decendents of the previous Pujaris as per the averments made in the plaint and the cause of action has arisen as a result of the act of the defendant Trust is wanting to appoint a new Pujari. The Aam Janta having in interest of the Temple moved an application under Section 92 C.P.C. in respect of the removal of the existing the Pujari and the appointment of a new Pujari and the court on the consideration of the application under Section 92 CPC has granted the said permission. The said order granting the permission under Section 92 CPC has not been challenged by the defendant Trust wherein the court has prima facie held that the Aam Janta who is the plaintiff is an interested person and is entitled to seek the relief based upon the pleading in the suit. Learned trial court while dismissing the application under order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action has taken into consideration while passing the impugned order the plaint averments and the facts which were placed before it and also the fact of permission has been granted to the plaintiff under Section 92 C.P.C. by the court after considering the application and has consequently dismissed the application while directing that in case after recording the evidence during the trial, it appears that the suit is barred it would be liable to be dismissed. Prima facie the plaint does disclose a cause of action and therefore the application under order 7 rule 11 CPC was liable to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances therefore I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. These three revision petitions are accordingly dismissed summarily. The learned trial court in the facts and circumstances of the present case is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the three suits which are in respect of the same Temple may be ordered to be consolidated and heard together. So far as the above prayer is concerned it is open for the parties to move before the learned trial court in this behalf who shall look of the facts and circumstances of the cases and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS