HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 27/2023 Harishanker Das Vedanti Chela Premdas, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Siyaramdas Ji Ki Bagichi, Dhehar Ke Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner-Defendant No.1 Versus 1. Mahant Maheshdas Shishya Late Laxman And Acharya, Acting Pranyasi Shri Balanand Ji Math, Uniyara Rav Ji Ka Rasta, Purani Basti, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Mehant Siyaramdas Chela Unknown, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Mandir Sh. Kanak Bihari Ji, Galta Road, Dilhi Bypass Road, Jaipur. 3. Sh. Manohardas Chaturvedi S/o Unknown, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Mandir Shri Chintaharan Kale Hanumanji, Prajapati Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. 4. Sh. Jairamdas Sadhak Shishya Jagdish, R/o 251, Badi Chavni Ashram, Durgapuram, Pani Ghat, Vrindavan, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. (Impleaded As Necessary Party By The Order Of The Court). ----Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripunjay Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 09/07/2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate (North), Jaipur Metropolitan-II) (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.1169/2022, titled as (2 of 4) [CR-27/2023] “Mahant Maheshdas Vs. Hari Shankerdas Vedanti & Ors.” whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959s. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent defendant Nos.2 to 4 mentioning therein that the plaintiff is a disciple of Late Shri Laxmananandacharya. After the death of Shri Laxmanandacharya on 31.10.2022, the plaintiff is working as a disciple of Late Shri Laxmanandacharya but the defendants are creating hurdle in managing the affairs of the trust. They want to encroach upon it. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 before the trial court to the effect that the said trust is a registered trust and as per Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but the trial court vide order dated 10.01.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plaintiff also filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan for declaring him as a trustee of the said trust. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (3 of 4) [CR-27/2023] (1) Kaushal Kishore Narnoli Vs. Gopal Public Trust & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) 454; (2) Frost International Limited Vs. Milan Developers and Builders Private Limited & Anr. reported in (2022) SCC 633. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that there is no dispute between the Devasthan Department and the plaintiff but the dispute is between the plaintiff and defendants and other persons. He further submits that the defendants want to take illegal possession on the disputed trust and they are creating hurdle in managing the affairs of the trust. So, the plaintiff had a civil remedy. So, the trial court vide order dated 10.01.2023 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust, Act 1959. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan for declaring him as a trustee of the trust. After the death of Shri Laxmananandacharya, plaintiff has declared himself as a trustee of the trust. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan is yet to declare the plaintiff as a trustee of the trust. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff wanted to manage the affairs of the trust. As per Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. So, in my considered opinion, (4 of 4) [CR-27/2023] the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the present suit and dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. So, the present revision petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/91