Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present appellants -plaintiffs including appellant No. 6, namely, Dayanand S/o. Jagdish Brahmin, has filed the present misc. appeal aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2013 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 22/2013 by the learned District Judge, Churu rejecting the application filed by the present appellants -plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court to present the suit in representative capacity in respect of the trust property situated at Churu known as "Murti Gauri Shanker Ji" of which the respondent -defendant No. 1 Chimna Ram Mantri Charity Trust is the Trust and claims that the said temple was constructed by the said trust which is duly registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
(2.) THE learned Trial Court, while rejecting the application of the appellants filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and refusing the leave to maintain the said representative suit, has held as under: - - The learned counsels Mr. B.S. Sandhu with Mr. Ripudaman Singh appearing for the appellants -plaintiffs submitted that the requisite elements for granting the leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been examined by the learned Trial Court and merely on the ground that the present representative suit filed by the plaintiffs includes the son of the previous judgment -debtor in the previous litigation, the application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be rejected, as the applicant has asked for the relief as enumerated in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsels Mr. Sanjeev Johari with Mr. Preetesh Mandover appearing for the respondents -Trust and its Trustees has vehemently submitted that the present suit in the representative capacity, as filed by the plaintiffs, is a gross abuse of the process of the Court, as in the previous litigation, in multiple rounds, the judgment -debtor Jagdish, father of the appellant No. 6 -Dayanand, has already lost in the suit for eviction/possession up to the High Court and Civil Suit No. 12/1993 "Chimna Ram Mantri through Trustee and Ors v. Jagdish Prasad, Parmeshwari Devi & Ors" having been decreed on 02.08.1993 and the Second Appeal No. 169/2000 having been dismissed by this Court on 02.03.2006 and even the objections filed by the appellant No. 6 Dayanand in Writ Petition No. 872/2012 having been dismissed by this Court on 01.02.2012 and again the objections filed in Execution Application No. 17/2005 having been dismissed on 03.02.2006; and in the chain of litigation, the defendants have lost and when the decree for dispossessing them from the suit property is at its final verge, the son of the defendant - Jagdish namely, Dayanand, the appellant No. 6, along with others have initially filed the application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court to maintain the present suit against the trust and trustees or the State Government through its Devasthan Department purportedly for proper management of the Trust property, which has rightly been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 finding locus of the appellants -applicants highly questionable and of doubtful integrity.;