JUDGMENT 1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the Plaintiff who is a worshipper of certain idols can maintain a suit against the custodians of these idols to locate them in a certain temple situated at the eastern end of a particular road instead of in another temple situated at the western end of the same road. The Plaintiff's case was that during certain festivals the gods are taken from the eastern temple, and after being paraded through the streets are carried to the western temple, and after an interval of a few days are brought back to the east temple and there kept until the next festival, and that the Defendants have not on a certain festival brought them back to the east temple after parading them in the manner stated. 2. The Munsif made an order that the gods should be kept in the east temple. 3. The Subordinate Judge has held that the suit is not maintainable. There is no allegation that the Plaintiff is prevented from worshipping the gods while in the west temple. He merely insists upon the gods being located in the east rather than in the west temple. Sec. 11 of the CPC enacts as follows :--"The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is barred by any enactment for the time being in force (Ex.). A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of question as to religious rites or ceremonies." It seems to follow by implication, as was pointed out in the case of Vasudeb v. Vamnaji ILR 5 Bom. 80 (1880), that suits as to religious rites and ceremonies which involve no question of the right to property or to an office, are not regarded by the legislature as suit of a civil nature nor intended to be brought within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This suit is not based upon any right to the property in idols or to an office, but upon the Plaintiffs supposed right as worshipper to insist on the observance of a ceremonial regulation relating to the particular temple in which the idol should ordinarily be located. This suit is not based upon any right to the property in idols or to an office, but upon the Plaintiffs supposed right as worshipper to insist on the observance of a ceremonial regulation relating to the particular temple in which the idol should ordinarily be located. We think that the suit is not one of a civil nature and that it has been rightly dismissed on that ground. The case law on this subject has been dealt with somewhat fully in the case of O. Nagiah Bathudu v. Mathacharry 11 M.L.J.R. 215 (1900), and we think it unnecessary to recapitulate the same. As regards the case of Jagannath, Churn v. Akali Dassia ILR 21 Cal. 463 (1893), which is not there referred to, we need only say that there was a claim to some right in the property. The grievance alleged by the Plaintiff in the present case seems to be merely sentimental. The plaint does not even set out any right in the Plaintiff to interfere with the discretion of the Defendants to locate the gods in the western temple. It only says that the Defendants have acted in violation of an old practice to bring the idols back to the eastern temple after a few days visit to the western temple. The Plaintiff is opposed to what he considers to be an innovation. The question he raises is not in our opinion of a nature cognizable by a Civil Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.