________________
૨૫૬
over $12-21 Sizes.
[Helmet
the same time the Jains applied for an interim order prohibiting the Darbar from doing certain acts pending the result of the suit. The Court held that the State, as the ruler, had a superior right, and refused the injunction: a finding which was based on no real evidence and which is tantamount to a premature decision on the whole question. The State's right could not possibly have been prejudiced by the injunction sought for, but the plaintiff's case is prematurely disposed of. The plaintiffs petitioned Mr. C. H. A. Hill, I. C. S. Agent to the Governor, to advise the Darbar to await the result of the Girnar case and refrain from any action on the hill. · Mr. Hill did not see his way to intervening in the case, and doubtless his attitude was scrupulously correct. The Rajprakarni Court on the Ist January, 1908, gave the defending State till the 19th March of the same year to file a reply to the plaint. This certainly appears to be ample time for the State Vakil to prepare his case. Various postponements have, however, been applied for and granted. The last was fixed for the 16th August of the present month for the filing of the necessary document. So far as we have been able to learn the reply has not been forthcoming. The hearing of the case is fixed for the 21st instant, and although application has been made. to allow a Bombay barrister to appear before the Rajprakarni Court on behalf of the plaintiffs, up to this 110 answer has been received.
Twenty months have passed without the slightest move being made in the case by the Court, and during the whole of this time the State has exercised on the Girnar Hill, what it claims to be its rights, doing irreparable acts and seriously prejudicing the claims of the Jain community. As we have already stated we have no desire to enter into the merits of the question of rights or the ability of the plaintiffs to main. tain their contention. But, assuming the accuracy of the facts we have set out, which are borne out by documentary evidence, we have no hesitation in saying that the Rajprakarni Court is not approaching the enquiry with an open mind, and that the