Hon'ble VYAS, J.—This review petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 114, read with Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. praying that the review petition may be accepted and after reviewing and re-considering the judgment dated 28.7.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 158 of 2009, the revision petition may be allowed in terms of the prayer made in the revision petition.

2. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioners on the instant petition for review/reconsideration.

3. In this review petition, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the revision petition challenge was made by the petitioners to quash order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner passed upon the application filed under Section 92, C.P.C. by the respondent-plaintiffs and it is specifically stated that Section 92 and 93 do not apply for the public trusts and application under Section 92 was not maintainable. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, error has been committed while deciding the revision petition which is required to be reviewed and reconsidered.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that while referring to the arguments, this Court has wrongly inferred that on behalf of the petitioners it is argued that no suit can be filed against the Trust as per Section 44 of the Act of 1959. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the argument was that suit can be filed against the unregistered trust but it can only be filed by a person who obtains a direction from the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department of the Government under Section 38 of the Act of 1959 and provisions of Sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Act were referred and further provisions of Section 40 were compared with the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also argued that vital aspect of the matter and relevant provisions have not been taken into consideration while deciding the revision petition.

5. It is also submitted that argument with regard to Sections 42 and 44 of the Act for the public trusts though submitted and referred to have not been considered while deciding the matter and though these provisions have been taken note of but while passing the order under review impact has not been considered.

6. Further, it is argued that this Court has erred in framing the question of law that petitioners are objecting that suit is barred under Section 44 and 73 of the Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, Section 73 of the Act has no relevance in the present case. The matter of the petitioners is that it is clearly admitted that a suit is maintainable against the public trust but it can be filed only by a person who obtains a direction for filing the suit from the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government of Rajasthan. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, while deciding the revision petition, this Court has erred in law while not deciding the question as to who is competent authority from whom the sanction file filing the suit is to be obtained. Therefore, this vital question is required to be adjudicated which is not adjudicated in the revision petition. It is argued that this Court has erred in deciding the matter on the premises that the petitioners are claiming relief on the ground that suit is not maintainable whereas it was never argued that suit itself is not maintainable. On the contrary, it was admitted that any person interested in the Trust can file a suit but with the sanction of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department and not with the sanction of the Court.

7. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have not claimed any right to object to filing of the suit but still can be filed with the sanction of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government of Rajasthan and not with the permission of the Court under Section 92, C.P.C. It is also argued that Section 29 of the Act which is taken into

Click Here to Read the rest of this document