[2025:RJ-JP:32702] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 255/2024 1. Rajendra Sharma S/o Sh. Ramprasan Sharma, Aged About 70 Years, Pujari Mandir Shree Amrit Raghunath Ji, Opposite Hawamahal, Jaipur. 2. Rupesh Sharma S/o Late Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, Pujari Mandir Shree Amrit Raghunath Ji, Opposite Hawamahal, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Satish Panchal S/o Late Sh. Laddu Gopal Panchal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Plot No. 151, Indra Colony, Opposite Jal Mahal, Amer Road, Jaipur And Shop No. 38. Hawamahal Bazaar, Jaipur. 2. Durga Lal S/o Late Sh. Mangi Lal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 1197, Riwai Mahant Ka Rasta, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur. 3. Rajesh Nagar S/o Sh. Rajendra Nath Nagar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o House No. 756, Pano Ka Dariba, Subhash Chowk, Jaipur. 4. Nagar Nigam Heritage Head Quarter, Through Mayer, Jalebi Chowk, Tripoliya Bazaar, Jaipur. 5. 6. Dy. Commissioner, Kishanpol Zone, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Ghatgate, Agra Road, Jaipur. Public At Large. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Madho Prapan Swami, Adv. Mr. Lakshya Dadhich, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 20/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 and 2 (for short ‘the defendants’) against the [2025:RJ-JP:32702] (2 of 3) [CR-255/2024] order dated 31.05.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Suit No.81/2024 (497/24), whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but trial court vide order dated 31.05.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that trial court had committed error in dismissing the application because by way of present suit, plaintiffs sought relief that defendants wanted to diminish the heritage look of the temple and they are doing illegal construction there. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that for similar pleadings, plaintiffs filed an application under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act before Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan. So, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as per Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. So, the present petition filed by the defendants be allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the he had no knowledge as to whether plaintiffs filed an application under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act before Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan or not but present injunction suit shall lie before the Civil Court. So, present petition [2025:RJ-JP:32702] (3 of 3) [CR-255/2024] filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an application regarding similar cause of action before Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. As per Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /98