A suit for permanent injunction relating to a public trust is barred under Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, if the grievances raised in the suit could have been addressed by an application under Section 38(1)(b) of the Act of 1959.

1. - This revision petition under Section 115 CPC impugns the order dated 09.04.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Ringus, District Sikar, in civil suit No. 38/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that following the death of one Rajendra Singh, President of Shri Shyam Mandir Committee Trust, disputes arose with regard to the trusteeship of the aforesaid trust. That aspect of the matter is however covered by the judgment of this Court in SBCWP No.12765/2013 decided on 09.12.2013, titled Shambhu Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , where under this Court had remitted the contesting parties to their remedy under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1959').

3. In the meantime on or about 18.05.2012, a suit for permanent injunction was laid by the respondents-plaintiffs, Shambhu Singh and Bhanwar Singh (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs'), against the defendant Mohan Singh in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Ringus, District Sikar, impleading aside of the State of Rajasthan also the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan-II, Jaipur and five banks where the accounts of the trust were maintained. In the said suit, it was averred that it related to a dispute between the trustees and consequently in terms of Section 27 of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, the court fee leviable was Rs. 200/- and a further sum of Rs. 30/- was being paid on account of relief for injunction. In the said suit, it was alleged that the defendant Mohan Singh was wasting immovable property and also wrongly misappropriating movable property of the trust in issue. In the facts alleged, it was prayed that the defendant Mohan Singh be restrained by way of a permanent injunction under the orders of the court from dealing in any manner whatsoever with the immovable and movable property of the trust. On service of notice of the suit on the defendant Mohan Singh, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed praying that the plaint be rejected in view of the civil suit being barred under Section 73 of the Act of 1959. Vide impugned order dated 09.04.2013, the said application has been dismissed by the trial court. Hence this revision petition.

4. Mr. S.M. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Dr. R.K. Sharma, appearing for the defendant, has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 73 of the Act of 1959 which reads as under :

Section 73 - Bar of jurisdiction : Save as expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act or in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive.

5. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to Section 38 of the Act of 1959 which reads as under :

Section 38 - Application for directions:

(1) If the Assistant Commissioner, on the application of any person having interest in a public trust or otherwise, is satisfied after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary that -

(a) the original object of the public trust has failed; (b) the trust property is not being properly managed or administered; or

(c) the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust.

he may, after giving the working trustee an opportunity of being heard, direct such working trustee or any other trustee or person having interest, in the trust to apply to the court for directions, within such time not exceeding thirty days as may be specified by the Assistant Commissioner.

(2) If the working trustee or any other trustee or person having interest in the trust so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust, or if, for any other reason, the Assistant Commissioner considers