JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA, J.

Instant petition is directed against the order dt. 27.05.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, 13, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 384/2012 whereby the application filed u/Ord. 7 R. 11 CPC by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that there is a Temple of Hanuman Ji known as Hanuti Hanuman Ji in village Ramsinghpura Teshil Sanganer, District Jaipur, which is said to be 150 years old and which was lying in a dilapidated condition and was not properly managed due to lack of funds and proper management and administration. The plaintiff-respondent namely; (Shri Hanuti Hanuman Ji Sevak Samiti Bavarui Koshlya Das Village Ramsinghpura), which is said to be a registered society under the Societies Registration Act on 07.06.1999 filed a Civil Suit before the Trial Court u/Ord. 7 R. 1 wherein, it was claimed that the society runs the Temple in just and proper manner and over the years has developed the Temple and surrounding areas in a befitting manner and there are 21 members of repute in the society. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that so many development works have already been completed and the society is continuing with huge constructions for the benefit and convenience of religious people having faith. It has claimed in the Civil Suit that some of the members to the detriment of the Temple as well as society are hampering the process and are encroaching upon the property owned by the plaintiff-respondent and in particular temple and wish to gradually take into possession the property of the Temple as well as the society and therefore, the Civil suit was filed with a prayer to protect the property of the Trust, restraining the defendant-petitioner not to encroach upon the property in illegal manner and not to interrupt in the development work being carried out by the society.

3. An application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 came to be filed by the defendant-petitioner inter-alia claiming that the suit is barred as the defendant-petitioner is registered in the year 2011 under the Devsthan Act, which is also for the benefit of the religious people coming for Darshan/Seva Puja and is doing work, as earlier, it was not managed well. It was also contended that the Civil Suit is barred u/Sec. 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (in short the Act of 1959) and the jurisdiction lies with the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan and all the matters relating to Trust or Temple or otherwise, is required to be considered under the Act of 1959 and the Civil Suit being barred, the application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 was required to be accepted. However, the Trial Court vide impugned order has rejected the said application by holding that the averments made in the plaint, are required to be seen and looked into and this can only be decided after leading the evidence and the Trial Court has held that the respondent has not made a prayer relating to the running of the Temple or Seve Puja and has only claimed about possessing the property and encroachment and which can be decided only by the Civil Court and accordingly, the application has been rejected.

4. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a registered Trust and after giving a public notice, it was got registered under the Act by a person, who came voluntarily to take care of the mismanagement or not proper maintenance of the Temple, which is of repute. Counsel contended that sec. 73 of the Act of 1959 clearly states that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with and when there is a specific bar, the Civil Court ought not to have rejected the said application which was just and proper and ought to have been accepted the same and dismissed the suit at the threshold. Counsel also contended that all enquiries or complaint, if any, by anyone including the defend