The decision is absurdity at its best...

yes I agree that the decision is absurd but we must mull over the thing that who is responsible for such things. Its our system where no proper training would have been given to them or there may be some other reasons. But whatever may be the reason such things make mockery of our judicial system throughout the world.

Yes the judgment is totally absurd, and now what will happen, the case will remain pending for years and years.

yeah..this was my mistake...Idols are given a juristic person status in law but for very limited purposes.. but still that judgment of the lower court does not hold good law as the notice shouldn't have been served to Gods..the same can not be done even if the Idols are treated as juristic person.. But I am really grateful to all of you for this knowledge..

for further information I am citing some apex court judgments..

Yogendra Nath Naskar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 1969 AIR 1089,

Property of the Gods, Devaswam, means whatever is abandoned for Gods, for purposes of sacrifice and the like, because ownership in the primary sense, as showing the relationship between the owner and the property owned, is impossible of application, to Gods". Thus, according to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha). The correct legal position is that the idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated property vests. As observed by Mr. Justice B. K. Mukherjea: "With regard to Debutter, the position seems to be somewhat different. What is personified here, is not the entire property which is dedicated to the deity but the deity itself which is the central part of the foundation and stands as the material symbol and embodiment of the pious purpose which the dedicator has in view. "The dedication to deity", said Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Bhupati v. Ramlal(1) "is nothing but a compendious expression of the pious purpose for which the dedication is designed". It is not only a compendious expression but a material embodiment of the pious purpose and though there is difficulty in holding that property can reside in the aim or purpose itself, it would be quite consistent with sound principles of Jurisprudence to say that a material object which represents or symbolises a particular purpose can be given the status of a legal person, and regarded as owner of the property which is dedicated to it."(2) The legal position is comparable in many respects to the, development in Roman Law. So far as charitable endowment is concerned Roman Law-as later developed recognised two kinds of juristic persons. One was a corporation or aggregate of persons which owed its juristic personality to State sanction. A private person might make over property by way of gift or legacy to a corporation already in existence and might at the same time prescribe the particular purpose for which the property was to be employed e.g. feeding the poor or giving relief to- the poor distressed. The recipient corporate would be in a position of a trustee and would be legally bound to spend the funds for the particular purpose. The other alternative was for the donor to create an institution or foundation himself. This would be a new juristic person which depended for its origin upon nothing else but the will of the founder provided it was directed to a charitable purpose. The foundation would be the owner of the dedicated property in the eye of law and the administrators would be in the position of trustees bound to carry out the object of the foundation.

The same has been considered and accepted again in a recent judgment of the apex court in teh matter of Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak vs Shri Som Nath Dass & Ors on 29 March, 2000.