Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed impugning the order dated 03.05.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), vide which the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

2. The facts within the precincts of the question posed before this Court are that the plaintiff-Pushtikar Bhashmeshwar Mahadev Mandir Seva Sadan Trust and its trustees, the respondents herein, filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and also for seeking possession of certain properties claiming them to be The Trust's properties.

3. The petitioner being defendant in the suit, filed an application dated 29.10.2015, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the plaint deserved to be returned, being barred by law on the following three counts:

(i) The suit having been filed by the unregistered trust was not maintainable;

(ii) The suit was barred by limitation; and

(iii) appropriate Court fee has not been paid.

4. The trial Court rejected the petitioner's aforesaid application vide its impugned order dated 03.05.2017. With respect to the question of limitation the Court below observed that it is a mixed question of facts and law; the Court is required to see the averments in the plaint only and the same does not indicate that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

5. As regards the maintainability of the suit for want of registration, the trial Court observed that since the plaintiffs' application for registration under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is pending consideration the suit cannot be rejected, as held in various judgments. The trial Court further observed that what is barred by Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is, hearing and decision of the suit, and not the institution as such.

6. As regards deficit court fee, the trial Court held that since the suit relates to dispute between the trustees, prima facie, the court fee of Rs. 200/- paid by the plaintiffs was in accordance with law, yet the objection raised by the defendants regarding deficit court fee, can be decided only after appreciation of material and evidence. Hence, instead of closing the defendant's right in this regard, the trial Court observed that an issue in relation to court fee shall be framed and decided at the appropriate stage.

7. Calling the order dated 03.05.2017, passed by the trial Court in question, Mr. Rakesh Chotia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the trial Court has seriously erred in rejecting petitioner's application dated 29.10.2015, filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. He contended that petitioner's application deserved acceptance on all counts. Firstly, making submissions regarding the requirement of registration, learned counsel contended that registration of the trust is sine quo non for the institution of a suit by a Trust and no suit filed by a trust can proceed sans its registration. Inviting attention of the Court towards Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, he submitted that there is a complete bar on maintainability of the suit by a trust in relation to trust property, if the Trust is not registered.

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon following judgments:

(I) New Apostolic Church Charitable Trust Vs. Samuel Mashi reported in 2016 (4) CDR 2001 (Raj.), (ii) Parash Ram & Ors Vs. Ram Singh & Ors reported in 2018 (1) WLN 527 (Raj.) and (iii) Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan Vs. Nand Lal & Ors reported in AIR 2017 SC 3603.

9. With respect to the second ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation; he pointed out that though an FIR was lodged in relation to the disputed property in the year 1992, yet the plaintiffs have filed the suit in question in the y