Civil courts maintain jurisdiction over trust election disputes, particularly with allegations of corruption, unless explicitly barred by statute.

ORDER :

1. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) has been preferred by the petitioners-defendant Nos. 1 & 10 challenging the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 126/2025 (Navratan Joshi vs. Harigopal Sharma & Ors.) vide which application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code read with Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1959”) has been rejected.

2. The facts in short are that plaintiff - Navratan Joshi (respondent No. 1 herein) has filed a civil suit for declaration and cancellation of the election of defendant No. 1 (petitioner No. 1 herein) to the post of President, Akhil Bharatvarshiya Shri Mahrishi Gautam Education and Charitable Trust and permanent injunction before the court of District Judge, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”). The suit challenges unopposed election dated 26.03.2024 of defendant No. 1 - Harigopal Sharma as President of the registered trust, alleging that the election was illegal, biased and conducted in violation of the trust’s constitution and principles of natural justice. The plaintiff claims his valid nomination was wrongly rejected through arbitrary rules, absence of an opportunity of hearing, manipulated timelines and collusion by election officials to ensure defendant No.1’s victory. He seeks cancellation of the election, declaration of it as void, directions for a fresh fair election and an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from misusing trust property and funds.

3. During the pendency of suit, defendant Nos. 1 & 10 (petitioners herein) have moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code read with Section 73 of the Act of 1959 seeking rejection of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has challenged unopposed election dated 26.03.2024 of defendant No. 1 as President of defendant No. 11 - trust and has sought that the said election be declared illegal and void. Such a dispute falls under Section 73 of the Act of 1959, hence, the suit is barred by law and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has already raised identical objections before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, where the matter is pending and fixed for hearing on 18.07.2025. The plaintiff has also suppressed material facts regarding earlier proceedings and has not approached the Court with clean hands. In view of the said pending proceedings and concealment of facts, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. The said application has been contested by the plaintiff by filing a reply to the application. It has been stated that the application filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 11 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code read with Section 73 of the Act of 1959 is misconceived, false and filed only to delay the proceedings. The present suit is not barred by Section 73 and is within the jurisdiction of the Court and validly challenges the illegal rejection of nomination papers and the election result, which can be questioned only through a civil suit. At the stage of Order VII Rule 11, only the plaint averments are to be considered, which clearly disclose a cause of action. The proceedings before the Devasthan authorities do not bar the suit. Therefore, it has been prayed that application of the defendants deserves rejection.

5. After hearing arguments of the parties, learned trial court vide its Order dated 03