( 1 ) A short question of considerable importance would arise for consideration in this writ petition. Whether the civil court is entitled to pass an order of injunction in a suit field under sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ( the Act ) against the order of the Deputy commissioner of Endowments passed under Section 83 (1) of the Act is the question. This question arises in the following background facts.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be in possession of premises bearing No. 1-7-30, alwal. It is his case that the land and the premises does not belong to Vara Vara narsing Rao Dharmashala of Sri Balaji venkateswara Temple (hereafter called the temple ) and that when he obtained permission from the Alwal Panchayat for the purpose of constructing compound wall and renovation of the structure, the temple did not object for it.

( 3 ) THE Assistant Commissioner, endowments Departments, Ranga Reddy district submitted a report to the Deputy commissioner, the third respondent herein, inter alia stating that premises No. 1-7-30 situated at Alwal belongs to the temple, that the petitioner herein is not a tenant or a lessee but encroached upon the temple premises. Therefore, action was initiated under Section 83 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner who is allegedly encroacher of the temple property. Before the third respondent, the In-charge Executive Officer gave evidence besides marking necessary documents. The petitioner herein opposed the application under Section 83 (1) of the act being O. A. No. 36 of 1998. By an order dated 10-4-2003, the third respondent declared the petitioner as an encroacher and directed him to vacate and hand over the premises to the Executive Officer of the temple within ten days.

( 4 ) AS per sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Act, any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (4) of Section 83 is given a remedy by way of filing a suit in the civil court to establish that the charitable or religious institution has no title to the property. But, curiously, the petitioner herein filed a revision under Section 92 of the Act before the Regional Joint Commissioner, hyderabad. When appropriate orders are not passed on this, he filed a writ petition before this court being W. P. No. 8061 of 2003. This Court, while ordering stay of eviction, disposed of the writ petition directing the Regional Joint Commissioner to dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law. The Regional Joint commissioner, by an order dt. 11 -9-2003, dismissed the revision petition being R. P. No. 14 of 2003. Before proceeding with further narration of the events leading to filing of the writ petition, be it noted that when the Act provides for a reference to the civil court or provides for a remedy by way of a civil suit, a revision petition under sub- section (1) of Section 92 is not maintainable. No elaborate reasoning is necessary except to refer to sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Act which reads as under. 92. Power of the Commissioner to call for records and pass orders: (1) The Commissioner may either suo motu or on the application, call for and examine the record of any deputy Commissioner or Assistant. commissioner, or of any other officer subordinate to him or of any executive Officer or any trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment, other than a math or a specific endowment attached to a math in respect of any administrative or quasi-judicial decision taken or order passed under this Act, but not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application, or reference to a Court is provided by this Act to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order taken or passed, and if in any case, it appears to the commissioner that such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for recons