ORDER

Paul, J. -- 1. The interesting conundrum in this matter relates to the interpretation of the words ‘Civil Court’ occurring in section 8 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as The Trusts Act).

2. The relevant factual background is that respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a civil suit / application under sections 8 and 9 of the Trusts Act against the petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking relief of declaration and injunction before the District Judge, Indore which was registered as COS No.RCS A-1088/2019. The learned District Judge transferred the said civil suit to the Court of VIth Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore for its adjudication. This order of learned District Judge is called in question in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Counsel submits that a combine reading of section 2 (i) which defines ‘Court’ and section 8 makes it clear that ‘Court’ means Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District. Thus, learned District Judge has erred in transferring the matter to Civil Judge, Class-I. In view of 2012 (4) MPLJ 675 (Shri Dev Mahadevji Mandir, Rehli v. Rajesh Kumar & Another), the term ‘Court’ means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. In view of this judgment, the order of learned District Judge be set aside and the civil suit may be directed to be decided by a Court having competent jurisdiction.

3. Respondent No.1 opposed the said contention and contended that term ‘Court’ is used in certain sections of the Trusts Act. However a careful reading of section 8 of the Trusts Act shows that the lawmakers consciously used words ‘a Civil Court’ in some other sections. There is a distinction between the term ‘Court’ and words ‘a Civil Court’. Both are defined in different enactments in a different manner and used in Trusts Act for different purpose. Reliance is placed on 1961 JLJ 329 (Badri Prasad v. Umashanker).

4. Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel urged that for the purpose of deciding a civil suit / application filed under section 8 of the Trusts Act, the Court must be ‘a Civil Court’ which is defined in M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order of learned District Judge in transferring the matter before the Civil Judge, Class-I.

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7. Before dealing with rival contentions of the parties, it is apposite to refer certain provisions. The ‘Court’ is defined in the Trust Act as under:-

“2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. –

(1) “court” means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. Section 8 of the Trusts Act reads as under:-

8. Civil suit against the finding of the Registrar.-

(1) Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar under section 6 may, within six months from the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 7, institute a suit in a Civil Court to have such finding set aside or modified.

(2) In every such suit, the Civil Court shall give notice to the State Government through the Registrar, and the State Government, if it so desires, shall be made a party to the suit.

(3) On the final decision of the suit, the Registrar shall, if necessary, correct the entries made in the register in accordance with such decision. (Emphasis supplied)

9. Section 3 of the M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958 describes various Civil Court as follows:-

“3. Classes of Civil Courts.- [(1)]. In addition to the Courts established under any other law for the time being in force, there shall be the following classes of Courts, namely :-

(1) The Court of the District Judge;

(2) [x x x]

(3) the Court of the