action arose to file the above suit, since the plaintiffs claim that they are performing pooja and other religious activities in the Temple which is in dispute. Therefore, the plaintiffs have right to perform pooja for festival and dates, whereas, the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 are managing the poojas of the Temple. As per Section 55 of the HR&CE Act, poojari is a servant of the Temple and no one is entitled to succeed poojariship. Only Trustee is entitled to control the servant of the Temple, as per Section 56 of the HR&CE Act. The learned counsel further contended that under Section 63(e) of the HR&CE Act, the Joint Commissioner alone is the authority to decide as to whether any one is having any entitlement in the Temple and decide the custom of a particular temple. Moreover, as per Section 108 of the HR&CE Act, a civil suit is expressly barred in matter relating to the administration and for reliefs provided under HR&CE Act. The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiffs claim that they are the poojaries of the Temple in question, but hereditary of the poojari was abolished even as early as 1976. Since the revision petitioners are in administration of the affairs of the Temple, the plaintiffs are under the control of the revision petitioners only. The competent authority as per Section 63(e) of the Act, has to decide the custom of the Temple and their religious activities. Since the suit is barred under Section 108 of HR&CE Act, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the revision petitioner to reject the plaint.
