JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally at the admission stage. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners appellants- defendants challenging the order dated 04.02.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") and the order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.2, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court). 3. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondents No.3 to 5, original-plaintiffs have filed the suit before the trial court seeking the permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants for restraining the defendants from using the name of Royal Cricket Club or posing themselves as the office bearers of the said club or organising any cricket competition. The respondents plaintiffs also filed an application seeking temporary injunction of similar nature under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2, which was granted by the trial court vide order dated 04.02.2012 and the petitioners-defendants were restrained from using the name of Royal Cricket Club during the pendency of the suit. Being aggrieved of the said order passed by the trial court the petitioners had preferred the appeal bearing No.18/2012 before the Appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2012. Hence being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioners has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Dilip Sharma appearing for the petitioners that both the courts below had committed an error in granting the temporary injunction in favour of the respondents plaintiffs, though the plaintiffs had failed to show any prima facie case in their favour. According to him, the position of the respondents-plaintiffs as the office bearers of the Royal Cricket Club is under dispute and the proceedings in that regard are going on before the various forums. He has also submitted that the suit having been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in their personal capacity and not on behalf of Royal Cricket Club which is the registered club. 5. However, the learned counsel Mr. He has also submitted that the suit having been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in their personal capacity and not on behalf of Royal Cricket Club which is the registered club. 5. However, the learned counsel Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs has submitted that both the courts below having concurrently found prima facie case in their favour, this court exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the impugned orders. However, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the Royal Cricket Club, and that necessary application for amendment would be made in the suit, if so advised. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned orders passed by the courts below, it appears that the suit has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in their personal capacity claiming to be office bearers of the Royal Cricket Club. Admittedly their position as the office bearers of the club is under dispute and various proceedings are pending before the various forums. When the suit has not been filed by the club itself, which is a registered club and has separate legal entity, the respondents-plaintiffs in their personal capacity could not ask for the injunction as prayed for in the suit. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that both the courts below have committed an error in granting the application of the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction pending the suit. This Court at this juncture, does not express any opinion as to whether the petitioners defendants would be entitled to use the name of Royal Cricket Club for holding any cricket competition or not. However the impugned orders passed by the courts below being illegal, both deserve to be set-aside. It is needless to say that the respondents-plaintiffs shall be at liberty to make application seeking amendment in the plaint, and such application if made, shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the courts below dated 04.02.2012 and 08.05.2012 are set aside. The petition stands allowed accordingly.Petition Allowed. *******