SHETH ANANDJI KALYANJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 29.5.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kherwada, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the Court below has erred in passing the impugned order and rejecting petitioners' prayer to issue notice only to the defendants nos.1 to 6. Narrated in nut shell, the facts appertain to the present writ petition are that a representative suit, as provided under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be filed seeking declaration that 'Rishabhdev Jain Temple', also known as 'Keshariya Nathji Jain Temple' is a 'Shwetambar' Jain Temple. Apart from such declaration, other ancillary reliefs were also claimed by the petitioners who converged as plaintiffs while impleading respondents nos.1 to 8 as defendants.

(2.) An application for leave of the Court as required under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed alongwith an application seeking service of notice by way of public advertisement. In pursuance of these applications, an order came to be passed by the trial Court on 22.5.2019, whereby leave to maintain the suit was granted. It was also ordered that one notice be published in a newspaper having nationwide circulation and another in Rajasthan Patrika/Dainik Bhaskar having its circulation in the State.

(3.) Consequent to the order dated 29.5.2019, a notice was prepared by the Court concerned, inter alia, inviting all the persons having interest in the subject matter, cause of action and reliefs sought in the suit. It is noteworthy that the proposed notice prepared for publication in terms of the order dated 29.5.2019, contained not only the names of all the plaintiffs and the defendants, but also the reliefs claimed and a short description of the dispute/issue involved. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant extract of the order dated 29.5.2019 and the contentious part of the notice, feeling aggrieved whereof, the petitioners have approached this Court: