JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. Although, the matter comes up on stay application; but, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, it has been heard finally at this stage.

2. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Dholpur (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 107/2021 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 5 (for brevity “the defendant No. 5”) under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, has been dismissed.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1/Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 5 and the respondents No. 2 to 5 stating therein that he performs ‘Seva Puja’ of the Mandir Mahadev Ji as per his Osra. It is averred that the defendant No. 5, in collision with the defendants No. 2 to 4, has obtained an order dated 11.02.2021 appointing him as Osredaar Pujari. Alleging that the defendant No. 5 has not such right, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. Therein, an application filed by the defendant No. 5 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.03.2022, impugned herein.

4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendant No. 5 submits that since, Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for brevity “the Act of 1959”) bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of orders passed under the Act of 1959, the suit is not maintainable. He further submits that his right of Osra has already been recognised by the learned Civil Court which has attained finality up to this Court and therefore, validity of the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Devasthan Department apportioning Osredaari in between him and the plaintiff could not be subject-matter of challenge in the suit. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 21.03.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, submit that this revision petition is devoid of merit and be dismissed accordingly.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. Section 73 of the Act of 1959 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.”

8. A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with any officer/authority under the Act and in respect of which decision or order of such officer/authority has been made final or conclusive. When asked by this Court as to whether the order dated 11.02.2021, the subject-matter of challenge in the suit, with regard to Osredaari or right to perform ‘Seva Puja’ is the ‘question’ which has been decided by the officer/authority under the Act of 1959, learned counsel for the defendant No. 5 placed reliance upon Section 38 of the Act of 1959. Section 38 of the Act of 1959 deals with authority of the Assistant Commissioner to pass necessary order concerning to management of the public trust and not with inter-se right(s) of the parties to perform Seva Puja. Leaned counsel for the defendant No. 5 could not satisfy this court that right of Seva Puja/Osredaari pertains to management of the public trust; rather, he fairly conceded that it is a civil right. In view thereof, this Court is of the considered view that the provisions of Section 73 of the Act of 1959 have no applicability in the present case.

9. Dealing with an identical situa