1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.404 OF 2008 Shri Kisan B. Divekar & Ors. ...Applicants. v. Smt. Ashalata P. Divekar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Prathmesh Bhargude i/by Sugandh B. Deshmukh, advs. For the Applicant. Mr. Avinash B. Avhad. adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Plaintiffs/respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No.180/07 claiming that they have certain rights in performing certain puja, etc. during the annual festival related to Gopinath Maharaj Dev on Tripuri Pornima and as the defendants/applicants, who are the trustees of the said temple were likely to create obstacles and obstructions in the exercise of that right of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought declaration of the right and also perpetual injunction. Defendants contended that the suit is of representative nature and as permission of the Court was not obtained to file suit in representative capacity, it was liable to be dismissed. After that stand was taken by the defendants, plaintiffs made an application that in case, it is found to be suit in representative capacity, necessary 2 permission may be granted. Same plea was taken by the defendants in reply to that application also. After hearing the parties, the trial Court came to conclusion that it is not the suit in representative capacity but in the personal capacity of the plaintiffs and, therefore, no such permission was required and accordingly, application was filed without any order. Defendants have challenged the said order in the present revision application. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and the impugned order. On perusal of the plaint and prayers ,it becomes clear that plaintiffs had tried to establish their individual rights and for that purpose, they seek declaration and perpetual injunction. The declaration is not sought for anybody other than plaintiffs themselves. If the claim would be for and on behalf of the plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons, it could be called representative suit. It is true that in the last sentence of the paragraph 8 of the plaint, it was mentioned that it was suit of representative nature and it appears that on that basis, defendants have taken a stand. Infact, that sentence is not consistent with the pleadings of the plaintiffs and the prayers made in paragraph 13. Taking into consideration all these material, I find that the trial Court was right in coming to conclusion that 3 it is not a suit of representative capacity and, therefore, no prior permission of the Court was required to file. 3 The learned counsel contends that the permission of the Charity Commissioner would be necessary to file suit. I am unable to accept this contention particularly when the plaintiffs are not seeking to interfere in the management or the property of the trust but only they want to establish their own legal rights to perform puja, etc. during the particular festival. 4 There is no substance in the present revision application, therefore, the revision application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)