1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2007 as passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bar in Civil Suit No. 39/2005 rejecting an application moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2. The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffs non-petitioners seeking declaration and perpetual injunction in relation to their claim as hereditary pujaries of Shri Ramdev Temple, Birantiya Khurd, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali. The petitioner has filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and taking objection about maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court; and has also asserted that this Court has already issued orders in the writ petition relating to the subject-matter of the present suit.

3. From the material placed on record and so also the material as placed for perusal during the course of arguments, it appears that the suit has been put to trial after framing of issues on 10.05.2006 and with further addition of an issue on 13.04.2007. Issues framed in the case read as under:-

"1- vk;k oknhx.k Jhjkensoth efUnj fcjkfV;ka [kqnZ ds vuqoaf'kd iqtkjh gS rFkk bl vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknhx.k 2- vk;k oknhx.k LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknhx.k 3- vk;k U;k;ky; dks okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ & izfroknhx.k 4- vk;k okn dh fo"k; oLrq ds laca/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ esa vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tk pqds gSa\ & izfroknhx.k 5- vuqrks"k\ 6- vk;k izfroknh V~LV dks oknhx.k dks gVkus ,oa vU; fdlh dks jkenso eafnj xzke fcjkfV;k [kqnZ esa iqtkjh dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSa\ & izfroknh"

4. It further appears that after amendment of issues, when the matter was pending for their evidence, the plaintiffs moved applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC and so also under

5. Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and the matter was posted on 07.09.2007 for reply and arguments on such applications. However, on 07.09.2007, the petitioner filed an application (placed on record as Annex. 3) purported to be one under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC stating that in relation to the pujariship of Ramdev Trust, this Court had already passed an order on 18.01.1994 and in the said litigation; father of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and so also the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan were parties; and the order as passed by the High Court would apply in relation to the pujaries and in respect of the right of Seva-Archna and the suit having been filed in concealment of the order so passed by the High Court remains barred by law and deserves to be dismissed.

6. The plaintiffs submitted a reply to the said application on 05.10.2007; and the application filed by the petitioner was placed for arguments on 23.11.2007 but on this date, the application so moved on 07.09.2007 was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner. Another application was, however, moved by the petitioner on this date, again under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC. Such application dated 23.11.2007 has not been referred in this petition for revision and the submissions in the present petition remain as if being in reference to the application dated 07.09.2007 only. Be that as it may, a copy of the application dated 23.11.2007 has been placed for perusal by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-non-petitioners wherefrom it appears that the petitioner suggested before the Trial Court that Ramdev Trust Committee, Birantiya Khurd being a public trust registered with Devasthan Department, no suit in its relation was maintainable before the civil Court. A decision of this Court in the case of Sharad Kumar v. Raghuveer Singh & Anr. (S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.191/2003 decided on 16.11.2005) was referred, a certified copy whereof has been placed for perusal before this Court.

7. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application so moved by the petitioner on 23.11.2007 by its impugned order dated 27.11.2007 with the observations that the plaintiffs we