ORDER : Though these writ petitions are listed for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally. 2. The legality and correctness of the order dated 22.05.2012 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 5 in O.S.No.212/2011, which is pending adjudication on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belgaum (Annexure-H) is questioned in these writ petitions. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the caveators/respondent Nos.1 to 4 at length. Respondent Nos.5 to 10, 12, 17 and 19 are served and unrepresented. Respondent Nos.11, 13 to 16 and 18 are deleted from the array of parties and perused the material on record. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein have filed O.S.No.212/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belgaum, seeking the following prayers. “30. PRAYER: HENCE, for these among the other reasons it is most humbly prayed that setting aside the contentions of the defendants if any, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a Decree: (A) Declaring that the branches of plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the hereditary Archakas and wahiwatdars of the plaintiff No.1-Temple and entitled to perform the traditional Pooja and Archana and service of the plaintiff No.1-Deity Shri Laxmidevi and hence, each of the Branch of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for 1 year each by rotation on every 4th year. OR As an alternative relief, if this Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold that the defendant No.3 is also entitled to the hereditary Pooja and Archana and service of the plaintiff No.1, at par with other hereditary successors of Sri Laxman Sutar, then each of the branch of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 be held to be entitled for the hereditary services of the plaintiff No.1 for one year each by rotation on every 5th year. (B) Declaring that the registration of Shri Laxmi Devasthan and making entries under Inq.No.297/1952, dated 04-09-1952 is illegal, null and void and non-est and not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, entries under Inq.No.680/1997, dated 15-10-1997 and Inq.No.25/1998, dated 03.07.2001 are illegal and null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. (C) Declaring that the legal heirs of Sri Laxman Sutar, original propositus and wahiwatdar Pancha of the plaintiff No.1, are the only entitled successors to the Administration and Management of the affairs of plaintiff No.1-Shri Laxmi Devasthan by hereditary succession. (C) Declaring that the legal heirs of Sri Laxman Sutar, original propositus and wahiwatdar Pancha of the plaintiff No.1, are the only entitled successors to the Administration and Management of the affairs of plaintiff No.1-Shri Laxmi Devasthan by hereditary succession. (D) The defendant No.3 and 9 and others be directed to give true and correct account of the funds collected in the name of Jeernoddhara of the plaintiff No.1-Diety, the amount collected from the Hundi of the plaintiff No.1 and also to account for the valuable golden, silver and other articles received since 1996 and assessed to be above the value of Rs.51,000/-. Consequently, the fund so accounted be held to be the property of the plaintiff No.1-Diety. (E) Consequently, the defendants be directed to entrust the custody of all the moveable properties of the plaintiff No.1 as shown in the Schedule ‘B’ Property and Schedule ‘C’ Property, in favour of the branch of the plaintiffs Nos.2 or 3, whenever their turn of worship and service of the plaintiff No.1 arises by rotation. (F) Consequently, the defendants, their agents, servants or any body on their behalf be restrained by issue of perpetual injunction from interfering with the hereditary rights of Pooja, Archana and wahiwat during the term of service and worship of the plaintiff No.1 by the branches of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 respectively. (G) Awarding the costs of this suit to the plaintiffs from the defendants. (H) Awarding any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances narrated in this suit. (I) Permission may please be granted to the plaintiffs to amend the pleadings of the plaint as and when and if, found necessary.” 5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.3 and 9 in the suit filed two applications, one, under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking revocation of the leave granted by the trial Court on 04.02.2011 under Section 92 of the CPC under I.A.No.1 to institute the suit. By the impugned order, said application (I.A.No.5) has been dismissed. By the very same order, I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC has been allowed. By the impugned order, said application (I.A.No.5) has been dismissed. By the very same order, I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC has been allowed. Defendant No.3 in the suit has been directed by way of interim mandatory injunction to hand over the yearly religious services along with all movable properties of plaintiff No.1-Deity Shri Laxmi Devi, in favour of plaintiff Nos.2(A) to (C) for rendering the services of plaintiff No.1-Deity for the year 2011-2012. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 7. At the outset, it may be noted that the writ petition insofar as it assails the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiffs has been rendered infructuous inasmuch as the said interim order has been complied with by petitioner/defendant No.3 in the suit and hence the correctness or otherwise of the said order need not be gone into in this writ petition. As far as dismissal of I.A.No.5 is concerned, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents/plaintiffs have sought to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Belgaum and not before the IV Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Belgaum, which does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That the said Court ought to have dismissed the suit as not maintainable or returned the plaint so as to be filed before the Principal Civil Court at Belgaum. In this regard, attention was drawn to the fact the plaintiffs have themselves sought leave under Section 92 of the CPC to file the suit before the said Court. Therefore, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order passed on I.A.No.5 may be quashed and the direction may be issued that to the effect that it is only Principal Civil Court at Belgaum, which has a jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiffs/ respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein submits that there is no merit in these writ petitions. That by way of precaution an application under Section 92 of CPC was filed seeking leave to file the suit. The said suit is not within the parameters of Section 92 of CPC. The plaintiffs seek a declaration with regard to Archaka rights and it is not a scheme suit. That by way of precaution an application under Section 92 of CPC was filed seeking leave to file the suit. The said suit is not within the parameters of Section 92 of CPC. The plaintiffs seek a declaration with regard to Archaka rights and it is not a scheme suit. That the trial Court has rightly dismissed petitioner’s application. There is no merit in the writ petitions and the same may be dismissed. 9. The prayers sought by respondents/plaintiffs have been extracted above. On perusal of the same, it is noted that the respondents/plaintiffs have sought a declaration with regard to the hereditary rights of Archakas and Wahiwatdars and they have also sought for a declaration that certain entries made in respect of the temple is null and void, illegal and non-est and not binding on the plaintiffs. The said prayers do not come within Section 92 of the CPC. Therefore, the suit filed before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belgaum is maintainable. The said Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by petitioner herein. There is no merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are hence dismissed.