Radhakrishnan, J.

We are in this case primarily concerned with the scope and ambit of Section 62(1)(ii) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 which says that the civil court can modify or cancel an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 57, section 58 or section 60 read with subsection (1)(a), (2), or (4)(a) of section 19 but it shall have no power to stay the Commissioner’s order pending disposal of the suit.

2. Petitioner is the senior most member of the Madathinkeezhil Tharavadu and is the hereditary trustee of Shri Bhayanamkavu Bhagawathy Temple which is a private temple belongs to that family. Being the senior most member of the family and hereditary trustee he manages the affairs of the temple. While so, 5th respondent, one of the members of the family who is in enimical terms with the family of the petitioner due to certain civil litigations inter se filed OA.No.20 of 2003 under section 57(a) of the HR & CE Act seeking a declaration to the effect that the temple managed by the petitioner is a public temple coming under the purview of the HR & CE Act and also for appointment of an Administrator for the management of the temple. Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, Kozhikode as per order dated 4-10-2006 declared that the temple is a public temple and rejected the prayer for appointment of an Administrator. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner as A.P.No.24/06 under section 61 of the Act and the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner vide its order dated 6-7-2007.

3. Deputy Commissioner then initiated suo moto proceedings under section 58 of the HR & CE Act as OA.No.28/06 for framing a scheme for management of the temple. Aggrieved by the said order the then trustee filed WP(C).No.27355 of 2006 before this court and this court granted stay of the appointment of the fit person and the writ petition was finally disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider the objections raised by the petitioners therein and pass appropriate orders. Later the Commissioner passed an order on 30-8-2007 by which it was decided to frame a scheme for administration of the temple and the order of appointment of the fit person was cancelled. The order was passed on 30-8-2007 in IA.No.38 of 2007. Later the second respondent issued Ext.P5 order calling for objections if any against the finalization of the scheme. Aggrieved by those orders petitioner has filed the present writ petition. We heard Sri. K. Mohanakannan and also Sri. Mohan C. Menon appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Govt. Pleader Sri. K. Sandesh Raj.

4. We are in this case primarily concerned with the question whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to grant stay of the order passed by the Commissioner in view of Section 62(1) (ii) of the Act. Section 62 of the Act deals with suits and appeals. Said provision in its entirety is extracted hereunder:

“62. Suits and appeals: (1) Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner-

(i) under section 61, sub section (1) or sub-section (2), and relating to any of the matters specified in section 57, section 58 or section 60; or

(ii) under section 57, section 58 or section 60 read with sub-section (1) (a), (2), or (4) (a) of section 19 may, within ninety days from the date of the receipt of such order by him, institute a suit in the Court against such order; and the Court may modify or cancel such order, but it shall have no power to stay the Commissioner’s order pending the disposal of the suit.

(2) Any party aggrieved by a decree of the Court under sub-section (1) may, within ninety days from the date of the decree, appeal to the High Court.

(3) (a) Any scheme for the administration of a religious institution settled or modified by the Court in a suit under sub-section (1) or on an appeal under sub-section (2) or any scheme deemed under section 103, clause (d), to have been settled or modified by the Court may, at any time, be mo