ATUL GANPATRAO KANTIKAR Vs. CHANDRAKANT NARSINGRAO ARGADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein ­ original defendant Nos.7 to 9 have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the learned trial Court ­ learned 9 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.64 in Special Civil Suit No.581 of 2004 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein by which the learned Judge has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioners herein ­ original defendant Nos.7 to 9 which was submitted to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC").

(2.) FACTS leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under: [2.1] That there is a temple of Omkareshwar Mahadev at Vadodara which was registered as A1980Vadodara in Inquiry Case No.8504/52 by an order of 16.11.1956. That according to the plaintiffs the suit property is registered as a public trust property. That according to the plaintiffs despite the fact that the suit property has been registered as a trust property, the said property is held to be of ownership of Hanumantrao Yashwantrao wrongly and illegal and by creating the bogus Will of Hanumantrao by Resolution dated 04.10.1974, the original defendant No.11 has illegally entered the name of Vasantrao Balasaheb Deshmukh and thereafter the original defendant Nos.1 to 5 ­ heirs of Vasantrao B. Deshmukh have got their names mutated in the revenue record/property card. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein ­ original plaintiffs instituted Special Civil Suit No.581/2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara for the following reliefs:

(3.) PRESENT Special Civil Application is opposed by Shri Shalin Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs. It is submitted that considering the reliefs prayed/sought in the suit, the learned Judge has not committed any error and/or illegality in rejecting the application Exh.64 and not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. It is submitted that as rightly held by the learned Judge, the reliefs which are sought in the suit, there shall not be any bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as provided under Section 80 of the Act.