Civil suits under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act must first seek resolution from the Assistant Commissioner; issues of jurisdiction not raised in lower courts cannot be considered in revision petitions.

ORDER :

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.1 (North), Udaipur in Civil Suit No.67/2016 whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC (hereinafter referred to as, 'the application') as preferred by the defendants has been rejected.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present suit itself is not maintainable in terms of Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1959').

As per Section 73 of the Act of 1959, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question qua which any decision can be taken by an officer or an authority in terms of the said Act.

Section 38 of the Act of 1959 provides that the Assistant Commissioner, on an application/complaint preferred by any interested person, of the trust property not being properly managed or administered, would enter into an inquiry and it is only after the decision/satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner regarding the object of the public trust having been failed that the parties would be referred to apply to the Court for directions.

Therefore, in terms of Sections 38 and 73 of the Act of 1959, the instant suit, without availing the remedy before the Assistant Commissioner, would not be maintainable and the Civil Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Revision petition No.66/2013 (Mohan Singh v. Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, Ringus, District Sikar & Ors.) decided on 02.01.2014.

3. A perusal of the order impugned dated 05.09.2023 and the application shows that the ground of the Court not having the jurisdiction was not even raised before the Court below neither in the application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC nor during the course of arguments. The said ground has been raised for the first time before this Court only.

4. In the opinion of this Court, the Court, in its limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, is required to test the veracity of the order impugned on the touchstone of the law governing the dispute only. Admittedly, the ground as raised before this Court was not raised before the Court below and hence, the Court below was not even required to go into the same. Consequently, there is no order on the issue as raised now which can be said to be impugned in the present revision petition or which can be set aside or affirmed. Therefore, without going into the question whether the suit in question is maintainable before a Civil Court in terms of Sections 38 and 73 of the Act of 1959, so far as the order dated 05.09.2023 is concerned, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same as the same is totally in consonance with law. Even otherwise, no other ground has been raised before this Court.

5. However, as the ground raised by the counsel goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the same before the Court below afresh and the learned Court below would be under an obligation to decide the same totally in accordance with law.

6. Consequently, Order dated 05.09.2023 is not interfered with and the present revision petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners as aforementioned.

7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.