IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit proceedings should have remained stayed until the trust obtained registration, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present first appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Family Court, Churu in Civil Suit No.24/2017 (300/2009) (77/2009) whereby while allowing the application as preferred by the defendants, the suit as preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts are that a suit was instituted by the plaintiff Trust for cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.04.2009 and for perpetual injunction. In the written statement, a plea was taken by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff Trust is not registered. In view of the said plea, issue No.7 as framed was decided as a preliminary issue vide order dated 15.12.2022.

3. Issue No.7 as framed was as under:

^^D;k VªLV ifCyd VªLV gS] blfy, oknh VªLV ds }kjk fcuk nsoLFkku foHkkx esa VªLV jftLVMZ djok;s nkok ykus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\^^

Vide order dated 15.12.2022, the Court decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff Trust with a finding that the plaintiff Trust is a Public Trust and is entitled to institute a suit even being unregistered. However, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs. Nand Lal and Ors.; AIR 2017 SC 3603 wherein it was held that the bar for institution of a suit by an unregistered Trust applies for hearing and deciding a suit and not in filing the suit, the learned trial Court granted a month's time to the plaintiff Trust to get itself registered.

4. On 05.04.2023, an application was filed by the defendants with a submission that as vide order dated 15.12.2022, a month's time was granted to the Trust to get itself registered and place the same before the Court, the same having not been done, the suit be dismissed in terms of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan's case (supra).

5. Vide the order impugned dated 10.08.2023, the said application as preferred by the defendants has been allowed and as a consequence thereof, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. The learned trial Court held that as time had been granted to the plaintiff Trust to obtain the registration certificate and the same has not been obtained within the specified time, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The Court, while deciding the application, also held that the plaintiff did not place on record any document to show that any attempt was made by the Trust to get itself registered/obtain the registration certificate after passing of the order dated 15.12.2022. Hence, the Court found that in terms of Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1959'), the suit deserves to be dismissed and hence dismissed the same.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding as recorded by the learned trial Court that no document was placed on record qua the attempts made by the plaintiff for obtaining the registration certificate post order dated 15.12.2022 is totally incorrect on the face of it as an application was very well filed by the plaintiff Trust wherein it was specifically submitted that although the plaintiff Trust had moved before the Devasthan Department for registration of the Trust way back in the year 2009, the same could not be decided as the Devasthan Department was not proceeding in view of an interim order having been passed in the present suit. It was therefore, prayed that it be clarified that the interim order passed by the Court would operate only for maintaining status quo qua the suit property and not for the proceedings initiated for issuance of the registration certificate.

However, the application as preferred by the Trust was rejected by learned Court vide order dated 10.08.2023 with the finding that there is no scope for clarification in the interim order and neither can any such clarification be made by the Court in terms of Section 151, CPC. On