The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred under Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 only in respect of matters which are required to be decided or dealt with by an officer or authority under the Act or in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive.

1. - This revision is directed against the order 15th October, 1982 passed by the District Judge, Tonk, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13th July, 1982 passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate Tonk on an application submitted by non-petitioner No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code for grant of temporary injunction in a suit filed by the non-petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2.

2. Shri Chaturbhuj Nath Mandir Trust, plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner was the President of the said trust. The case of the plaintiff non-petitioner is that on 26th May, 1978 the petitioner resigned as the President of the said trust and the said resignation of the petitioner was accepted on 10th July, 1978 The case of the plaintiff-non-petitioner is further that after the acceptance of his resignation the petitioner continues to describe himself as the President of the trust and non-petitioner No. 2 as the Secretary of the trust. The plaintiff-non-petitioner, therefore, filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2, not to use the registration No. 344 of the trust in any way and not to describe themselves as the President and the Secretary of the trust in any written material and not to collect any donation on the basis of the registered number and the name of the trust. The plaintiff-non-petitioner also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for grant of a temporary injunction in this regard. The said application for grant of temporary injunction was. resisted by the petitioner and non-petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2. It was submitted on their behalf that the suit is not maintainable without giving notice to the Commissioner of Devsthan in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act and further that in view of the provisions contained in Section 73 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 also contested the application for grant of temporary injunction on merits, and submitted that the petitioner had never resigned from the office of the President of the Trust.

3. The Munsif by his order dated 13th July, 1982 rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 72(1) of the Act on the ground that the said provisions are not applicable to the suit which is for grant of a permanent injunction. The Munsif also rejected the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court raised by the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 under Section 73 of the Act and held that the said provisions were not attracted to the suit. On merits the Munsif found that the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case in its favour that the petitioner had resigned from the office of the President of the trust on 26th May, 1978 and the said resignation was accepted on 10th July, 1978. As regards the balance of convenience and irreparable injury, also the Munsif found in favour of plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, he issued a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 from using the name of the trust or registration No. 344 of the Trust in any manner and not to describe themselves as the President and the Secretary of the trust.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Munsif the petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the District Judge, Tonk by his order dated 15th October, 1982. Before the District Judge the main contention that was urged on behalf of the petitioner was with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1. The District Judge, after examining the