JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - (IA No. 63/2018) 1. The present application has been filed by the applicant-Trust, namely, Shri Paday Mataji, Shri Kalyan Rai Ji, Shri Sarki Mataji Temples Management Samiti, Didwana, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as then 'Trust'). The applicant's Trust Deed is registered before the Sub-Registrar, Didwana, District Nagaur. The applicant has moved the present application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking its impleadment, as a party, in the present appeal. 2. Before dilating upon the application, prudence demands that we have a bird's eye of the controversy. Hence, some facts. Succinctly stated, they are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition which came to be decreed by the Additional District Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur, vide its judgment and preliminary decree dated 18.12.2014 with the following stipulations:- 17& pwafd fook|; fcUnw la[;k&1 vkaf'kd :i ls cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k fofuf'pr fd;k x;k gSA fook|; fcUnw la[;k&1 esa dh xbZ lk{; dh foospuk ls ;g Li"V gS fd okni= ds iSjk la[;k 3 d esa of.kZr tk;xk dksVZ eksgYyk MhMokuk esa ,d eaftyk iDdk edku ftlds iM+kSl mrj esa uFkey ukxkSj dk edku] nf{k.k esa edku dk fudky iSlkj] dkywth cSM dk edku] iwoZ es xyh vkxs Jh fuokl ialkjh dk edku ,oa if'pe esa dY;k.k th eafnj gS] ;g izfroknhx.k ds firk LoxhZ; jk/kkfd'kuth dh tk;sxk jgh gS vkSj mudh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ og mUgsa izkIr gqbZ gS o blh izdkj okn i= dh iSjk la0 3 M esa of.kZr dksV eksgYyk MhMokuk esa ekrkth ds eafnj o y'dj Xokfy;j esa ekrkth ds eafnj esa iwtk&vpZuk dk vf/kdkj Hkh LoxhZ; jk/kkfd'kuth dks izkIr Fkk\ vkSj mudh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ izfroknhx.k mDr vf/kdkj dk mi;ksx&miHkksx vkljs ls dj jgs gSa] bl dkj.k mDr tk;xk o vf/kdkjh esa oknhx.k dk 1@7&1@7 gd curk gS] ftldk os caVokjk ckbZ feV~l ,.M ckm.M~l djkus ds vf/kdkjh gSa ,oa tfj;s LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk mDr lEifr ds jnkscny] ifjorZu] ifjo/kZu o vU; izdkj ls varj.k ugha djus ckcr izfroknhx.k dks ikcan djokus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 3. By way of the decree under consideration, the Court below has held that plaintiffs shall also have 1/7-1/7 share in the rights of worship and offerings of the temple mentioned in para 3 (M) of the plaint, known as 'Sarki Mataji Temple', while distributing the parental/ancestral properties of their family. 4. By way of the decree under consideration, the Court below has held that plaintiffs shall also have 1/7-1/7 share in the rights of worship and offerings of the temple mentioned in para 3 (M) of the plaint, known as 'Sarki Mataji Temple', while distributing the parental/ancestral properties of their family. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the preliminary decree aforesaid, the defendants have preferred the present appeal and the same is pending since 2015. 5. Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, arguing his impleadment application submitted that by way of the impugned preliminary decree, the Court below has distributed the properties of the temples also. According to him, the subject matter of partition, particularly in relation to one of the three temples, namely, ' Mataji Temple, Kot Mohalla, Didwana' is being managed and controlled by the applicant-Trust. Such distribution by the Trial Court concerns the applicant, as the same could not have been done by the Court below. 6. Mr. Sajjan Singh vehemently contended that not only the properties and immovable assets of said temple, even the right to appoint 'Pujari' vests in the applicant-Trust and, therefore, the plaintiffs and the defendants cannot distribute or share the 'days' or share in the right of worship, amongst themselves. He urged that right to appoint 'Pujari' vests in the applicant-Trust and any order passed in this regard and more particularly in the present appeal is likely to prejudicially affect its rights, and the same cannot be passed behind the back of the applicant. 7. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant is neither a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, nor registered with the Devasthan Department under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, and as such, the properties claimed by the applicant-Trust cannot be said to be public properties. 8. Notwithstanding above, Mr. Bhojak contended that the Trust Deed, on the basis whereof, the applicant is claiming its right, itself makes it abundantly clear that the right of worship would remain with/amongst the four family branches, as per the prevailing customs. He added that the right of worship absolutely remains with the 'Pujari', in accordance with the customs and the applicant-Trust has no right to decide that who shall be the ' Pujari ' or who shall carry out worship. He added that the right of worship absolutely remains with the 'Pujari', in accordance with the customs and the applicant-Trust has no right to decide that who shall be the ' Pujari ' or who shall carry out worship. Trust's right is only to manage the affairs of the temple. The distribution or allocation of days of worship or offering is essentially private dispute between the pujaries, he emphasised. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties at bar and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant-Trust, even on the basis of the Trust Deed, placed before this Court, has no proprietary right over the properties of the temple(s). Even the right of worship, as usual, is governed by the practice and custom of the temples and it is within absolute domain of the descendants of 4 families. The properties of the temple though does not vest in the Trust, even if it is so presumed, the Court below has not partitioned the properties of the temple, vide the order oppugned. A bare look at the judgment and decree under consideration reveals that the Court below has only reckoned 1/7 share of each plaintiffs, in the right of worship. 10. The applicant-Trust has only the right to carry out the other administrative affairs of the temples, as per the documents placed by the applicant itself. In the opinion of this Court, the applicant-Trust cannot be allowed to inter-meddle or intervene in the present appeal, much less participating as a defendant. The dispute at hand is essentially a family dispute or a dispute between the family members. The applicant-Trust has no cause for concern, much less cause of action to challenge or defend the decree. The impleadment of applicant would in no manner help or assist the Court, in deciding the appeal; on the contrary, the same would impede or impair the hearing. The applicant- Trust can very well manage the affairs of the temple(s), as per the Trust Deed adopted by the persons concerned and Management of the Temple at the time of its creation. 11. The application (IA No. 63/2018) for impleadment, by the Trust, a busybody, is thus dismissed.