The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951, and its applicability to pending proceedings, including the permissibility of granting interim relief despite the prohibition on deciding the suit.

The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the present first appeal u/s. 96 of the C.P.C. against the judgment dated 1.2.2017 passed by 14th Additional District Judge, Indore, by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the plaintiff trust known as “Shri Vaishna Sahayak Trust” is a registered trust under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter, for short, “the Act”) having Registration No.Q/Reader-1/47, 63-64 dated 5.9.1964, address – 74, M.T. Cloth Market, Indore. The said trust was constituted by the Committee of Maharaja Tukojirao Holker New Cloth Market, Indore. The plaintiff trust was allotted the land admeasuring 0.69 Hect. comprised in Survey No. 293 and 409/4; and 1.29 Hect. of Survey No.417, village Sirpur, Tehsil & District Indore. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants No.1, 2 and 4 with the collusion of revenue authorities have got mutated the land of Survey No. 295 in their name. A survey was done on 11.6.2009 by the Tehsildar, in which, the land of Survey No. 295 was shown within the boundaries of plaintiff trust. When respondents No.1 and 2 started claiming their ownership over the land, a cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit. Accordingly the plaintiff filed the Civil Suit No. 42-A/2009 along with an application for temporary injunction. Vide order dated 7.8.2009, order of status quo was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants filed the written statement and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court vide order dated 10.3.2014, has framed the following issues:

^^1- D;k oknh VªLV xzke fljiqj rglhy gkrksn ftyk bankSj fLFkr oknxzLr Hkwfe losZ uacj 293] 295] 296 ds LoRo/kkjh gS\

2- D;k izfroknhx.k oknxzLr Hkwfe esa oknhx.k ds vkf/kiR; esa gLr{ksi dj jgs gS\

3- D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe losZ uacj 295 izfroknh Øekad 1] 2] 3] ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dh gS\

4- D;k oknh us vlR; vk/kkjksa ij okn izLrqr fd;k gS\

5- lgk;rk ,oa O;;\**

3. In respect of the pleadings, the plaintiff have filed the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C of Purushottam Parsai, the President of the Trust. The plaintiff have already got exhibited as many as 14 documents as Ex. P/1 to P/14.

4. Three persons viz. Radheshyam, Amit and Harish filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. seeking their impleadment as defendants in the suit by virtue of transfer of land bearing Survey No. 295 in their favour by defendants No.1 and 2. Vide order dated 26.9.2016, the application was allowed and they were directed to be impleaded as defendants No. 5, 6 and 7 with the direction to file the written statement.

5. On 27.10.2016, defendant No.3, State through Collector filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff Trust is not a registered public trust, therefore, the Civil Court is not having any jurisdiction to entertain the suit by virtue of the bar created in Section 32 of the Act. The said application was replied and opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the objection taken by the defendant No.3 is beyond the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed. Said application came up for consideration before the Court .That vide order dated 1.2.2017, the learned trial Court has allowed the aforesaid application, and dismissed the suit hence, the present appeal before this Court.

6. The Appellant/plaintiff has assailed the order dated 1.2.2017 on the ground that as per language of Section 32 of the Act, the suit cannot proceed unless the trust is registered but the suit is not liable to be dismissed. If there is any discrepancy in the name of the trust in the registration certificate, that can be rectified by the competent authority during pendency of the suit and thereafter, the suit can proceed, but the suit is not liable to be dismissed on this ground.

7.