ORDER

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.10.2022, passed by the District Judge, Ratlam in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.33/2022, whereby, the petitioner?s application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected.

3. Although, this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the District Judge, Ratlam and is not maintainable, however, considering the fact that the arguments were already heard on 13.12.2023, this Court finds it expedient to decide it finally while invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent Shri Krishna Jain Mahila Kala Kendra is a public Trust registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1951?) which had filed an application for recording change in the Trust register under section 9 of the Act of 1951 on 26.09.2020 before the Registrar of Public Trust, Ratlam which was registered as Case No.11/B-13/(03)/19-20, and the Registrar, Public Trust passed the order on 21.9.2021, and accordingly passed the compliance order dated 7.12.2021 along with the amendment order dated 27.12.2021. Thus, the change was made in the register w.e.f. 27.12.2021.

5. Being aggrieved of the order dated 07.12.2021, the respondent preferred an application under section 25(3) of the Act of 1951 before the Civil Judge, Ratlam on 16.2.2021, which was registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.33/2022. The aforesaid proceeding was challenged by the petitioner by filing an application under section 151 of the CPC on 14.03.2022, which was dismissed by the District Judge on 4.4.2022, and being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred M.P. No.2902/2022 before this Court, which was allowed by this Court on 21.9.2022, and directed the District Judge, Ratlam to decide the matter afresh. However, learned District Judge, Ratlam has passed the impugned order on 20.10.2022, again dismissing the petitioner?s application. Hence, this petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law for the reason that the provisions of section 25(3) of the Act of 1951 were not applicable and in fact, a suit ought to have been filed under section 8 of the Act of 1951, which applied to any finding recorded under section 6 of the Act of 1951, and as per section 9(3), the provisions of section 8 shall apply to any finding under Section 9, which provides for change in the Register of Trust. Thus, it is submitted that a civil suit ought to have been filed by the respondent within six months? time from the date of publication of notice under Sub-section (1) of section 7 and thus, the application under section 25(3) was misconceived. It is also submitted that the term „Civil Court? used in section 8 and 12 of the Act of 1951 indicates the lower Court of civil jurisdiction as provided in M.P. Civil Court Rules and Orders.

7. It is further submitted that an application under section 25(3) is not maintainable against an order passed under section 9. It is submitted that the learned District Judge, Ratlam had no jurisdiction to hear the matter under section 25(3), which was not maintainable. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the respondent under section 25(3) be dismissed.

8. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Badriprasad Gaurishankar Shukla and Ors. v. Umashankar Munnulal and Ors. passed in C.R. No.318 of 1960 decided on 10.1.1961; Seth Trilokchand Kalyanmal Digambar Jain and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Kasliwal and Ors. passed in M.P. No.6301 of 2019 decided on 7.10.2021; and Yug Dharma Public School v. Employees Provident Fund Organization passed in M.P. No.4