Order

1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No.109/2024 (NCV No.410/2024) whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7, stood rejected.

2. The ground raised by the defendants in the application was that jurisdiction of the Civil Court to hear the suit in question was barred in terms of Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’).

3. It was submitted that the issue as raised was to be dealt with and decided by the Officer or Authority as provided under the Act of 1959 and hence, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction.

4. It was submitted that the plaintiff had already submitted his objections in terms of Section 23 of the Act of 1959 before the Assistant Commissioner and hence, he had no locus standi to file the present suit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court erroneously rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

6. Per contra Counsel for the respondents while relying upon a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Harigopal Sharma & Anr. vs. Navratan Joshi & Ors.; S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.261/2025 (decided on 02.02.2026) submitted that election disputes are not contemplated to be decided by the Authority/Officer under the Act of 1959 and hence, it is only the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to decide such disputes.

7. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.

8. In Harigopal Sharma (supra), the Court while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Dhulabhai etc. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.; 1969 AIR (SC) 78 and a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Nathu Lal Sharma vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors.; S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.72/2022 (decided on 26.04.2022), held as under:

“Applying the ratio of law laid down in aforesaid cases, this Court finds that adjudication in Nathu Lal Sharma’s case squarely covered the issue in the present case, wherein it has been held that disputes relating to election of trust office bearers, particularly when founded on allegations of corrupt practices and connivance, are amenable to civil jurisdiction in absence of a statutory bar.”

9. In Nathu Lal Sharma (supra), while dealing with a similar situation, the Court held as under:

“6. This Court finds that such observations/findings of the trial court are not within parameters of law. Prima facie, the dispute of election raised in the present civil suit does not attract the application of Section 23 of the Act of 1959 and consequently, the bar of jurisdiction of civil court as enshrined under Section 73 of the Act of 1959 is not applicable. When on bare perusal of the plaint, the dispute raised therein, and the issue involved therein, do not attract the bar of Section 73 of the Act, then it is not desirable to frame a preliminary issue in that respect. Hence, findings of trial court to this effect cannot be countenanced however, merely for the reason that the trial court expressed some different reasons to dismiss the application, argument of counsel for the petitioner to declare the present civil suit as barred under Section 73 of the Act of 1959 cannot be accepted. In the judgment of Sharad Kumar (supra), referred by counsel for petitioner, there was no dispute relating to election of any candidate of Trust. This Court does not have any disagreement with proposition of law settled in the judgment, however, the same was based in different context and wholly on different facts, whereas, in the present suit the controversy between parties revolves around the election dispute.

Under the scheme of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, there is no specific provision to deal with dispute of election in the Trust. Moreso, when an election in the presen