IMPORTANT POINT
The quashing of an order that serves as the basis for a suit nullifies the cause of action, rendering the suit unmaintainable under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT :

MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court') in Civil Misc. Suit No. 05/2010, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff - Jodhpur Medical Research Centre Public Trust, Jodhpur, through trustee Dr. S.D. Khetani had preferred a suit invoking the provisions of Section 38 and 41 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1959') before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur in pursuance of order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Assistant Commissioner'). The said suit was preferred seeking appointment of other trustees in accordance with the trust deed. The suit was amended on 11.05.2011. In the suit, it was stated that the learned Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 11.12.2009 while holding that the Jodhpur Medical Research Centre Trust is a public trust and Dr. S.D. Khetani is a working trustee, granted opportunity to him to apply to the District Court for directions within a period of one month, therefore, seeking the aforesaid reliefs, the plaintiff preferred the suit.

3. The present petitioners, thereafter, submitted an application before the learned trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. In the application, the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had a remedy of filing appeal within two months under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 against the order dated 11.12.2009. It is submitted that on 19.12.2009 i.e. within eight days from the date of passing the order dated 11.12.2009, the plaintiff preferred the suit before the learned trial Court invoking the provisions of Section 38 and 41 of the Act of 1959, whereas petitioners had two months’ time to file an appeal against the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner and accordingly, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Rajasthan-Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Commissioner'). Vide order dated 09.03.2010, the learned Commissioner quashed and set aside the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner. In the application, it was further averred that pursuant to the order of the learned Commissioner, Jodhpur, the learned Assistant Commissioner by invoking the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1959, has entered the name of the present petitioners in the register and then the same was published. Against the order of entering the name of the present petitioner and publishing the same, the plaintiff had preferred writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4377/2010 before this Court. However, no stay order was granted. The suit was preferred by the plaintiff pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner and the said order had already been quashed and set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 09.03.2010.

4. On 02.03.2012, the learned trial Court while taking note of the fact that the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2009 has been quashed and set aside by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 09.03.2010, rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151, C.P.C. holding that the suit has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 38 and 41 of the Act of 1959 in compliance of the order of learned Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2009. The learned trial Court also observed that none of the circumstances as mentioned under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are present in the sui