JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 115 of C.P.C., Challenging the order dated 27.8.2012 passed by the Civil judge (J.D.) Sardarsahar, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 66/2012, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners-defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs have filed the suit against the petitioners- defendants seeking permanent and mandatory injunction under the provisions contained in Specific Relief Act alleging inter alia that there was a temple of Sada Shri Bhagwan Shankar ad-measuring 50 x 50 square yards, situated at Garh, Gandhi Chowk, Railway Station Road and the patta of the said land was issued in favour of one Muhan Bhagat by the erstwhile Bikaner State. It was alleged in the plaint that the 'puja' was being performed by the forefathers of the plaintiff No. 2 i.e. Gajanand Sharma and the defendant No. 2 i.e. Ramlal. The plaintiff had also given the details of the pedigree of the plaintiffs and defendants in the plaint. It was further alleged that the plaintiff No. 2 was the pujari as well as the devotee of the said temple and had right to file the suit for injunction as the defendants were putting up construction of commercial nature in the temple premises. In the said suit, the petitioners-defendants had filed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint against the defendants and the suit was also not properly valued by the plaintiffs. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Vijay Vyas for the petitioners taking the Court to the averments made in the plaint, submitted that the plaintiff No. 2 had not right to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff No. I and that no cause of action had arisen against the defendants. He has submitted that the defendants were the owners of the premises in question and also performing the 'puja' of the temple. He has submitted that the defendants were the owners of the premises in question and also performing the 'puja' of the temple. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman v. M/s. Ponnimman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/managing Trustee, 2012(2) WLC (SC) Civil 211 , the learned counsel has submitted that the cause of action would be a bundle of facts, which would give right to the plaintiff to seek relief against the defendant, and mere recital of cause of action in one para would not be sufficient to disclose the cause of action. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Ram Kripal Das Ji Charitable Trust v. Phool Chand & Ors., 2012(3) WLC (Raj.) 516 , the learned counsel submitted that the land in question being agricultural land, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. B.M. Bhojak for the respondents- plaintiffs has submitted that the respondent No. 2 being the devotee as well as the legal heir of the pujari of the temple in question, had right to file the suit on behalf of the deity. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bishwanath & Anr. v. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1044 . He has also relied upon in case of Ranjeet Mal v. Poonamchand & Anr., I.L.R. (1982) Rajasthan Series 912 , and submitted that the trial Court having rightly considered the provisions contained under Order 7, Rule 11 while rejecting the application of the petitioners, this Court should not interfere with the same. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, as also the averments made in the plaint, it clearly transpires that the respondent No. 2-plaintiff No. 2 has filed the suit before the trial Court in the capacity of the pujari as well as the devotee, and also for and on behalf of the deity-plaintiff No. 1. As per the settled legal position, an idol could be regarded as a juridical person capable as such of holding properties, and a worshiper could file the suit against the person acting as the manager of such property. As per the settled legal position, an idol could be regarded as a juridical person capable as such of holding properties, and a worshiper could file the suit against the person acting as the manager of such property. Of course, it will be a matter of evidence in the instant case as to whether the respondents-plaintiffs had any right to sue the appellants-defendants or not. At this juncture, the Court has to see whether the cause of action has been disclosed by the plaintiffs in the plaint or not. There cannot be any disagreement with the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the cause of action is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives right to the plaintiff to seek relief against the defendant. However, in the instant case, the plaintiffs have stated in various paragraphs of the plaint as to how the cause of action had arisen against the petitioners- defendants. Since the plaintiffs had specifically stated their right to sue and also disclosed the cause of action in the plaint, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 as contended by the learned-counsel for the petitioners- defendants. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any substance in the present revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. The record of the case is directed to be sent back forthwith. .Revision dismissed. *******