Madhya Pradesh High Court
Agrawal Samaj Pachore vs Murti Shri Radhakrishna Ji Maharaj on 5 April, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5th OF APRIL, 2022
CIVIL REVISION No. 11 of 2021
Between:-
AGRAWAL SAMAJ PACHORE PRESIDENT SHRI
JAGDISH MANGAL S/O SAWAIRAM, AGED 70
YEARS,
R/O: WARD NO. 2, BALAJI NAGAR, PACHORE,
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI Sameer Athawale Adv.)
AND
1. MURTI SHRI RADHAKRISHNA JI MAHARAJ
PACHOR PUJARI GAURISHANKAR S/O MEHTAB JI
SHARMA, AGED 79 YEARS,
R/O: RADHA KRISHNA TEMPLE PREMISES, WARD
NO. 13, PACHORE,
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. S. D. O. SARANGPUR DIVISION,
DISTRICT RAJGARH (M.P.)
3. TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL PACHORE,
DISTRICT RAJGARH (M.P.)
4. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(Shri J.B. Mehta Adv. for respondent No.1)
This revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1/ This civil revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short "CPC") has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Sarangpur, District Rajgarh in Civil Suit No.98-A/2020, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 has been dismissed.
2/ The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.98-A/2020 against the petitioner and respondents Signature Not Verified SAN No.2 to 4 for mandatory and permanent injunction and for declaration that registration of the trust of Murti Shri Radhakrishna Maharaj Mandir Dharmik and Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.04.06 10:34:27 PDT 2 Parmarthik Trust Pachore is illegal and void as also for mutating name of Pujari in revenue records in his individual capacity. Vide circular of the Government dated 21.3.1994 name of the Collector has been added in the revenue record as Prabandhak (Administrator) and the Public Trust has been registered under Section 8 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. Petitioner/defendant No.1 after service of the notice filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC by stating that the Court of Civil Judge Class-1 wherein the present suit has been filed, does not have the jurisdiction to try the suit and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable before the court of Civil Judge Class-1 and that the jurisdiction to try the suit is with the Court of District Judge, Rajgarh. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 18.12.2020. Hence present revision petition before this Court.
3/ Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 8 & 2(1) of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 provides for Principal Civil Court of the District, which is the Court of the District Judge. The learned trial Court has erred in law in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC holding that the Court of Civil Judge Class-1 has the jurisdiction to try the suit. Impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, perverse and deserves to be set aside. Trial Court has committed jurisdictional error and failed to follow the dictum of the cited judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 671. Hence, he prays that impugned order be set aside and further suit filed by the respondent No.1 be also dismissed.
4/ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner by supporting the impugned order passed by the court below.
5/ I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties and carefully examined the documents filed along with the present petition.
6/ The trial Court has dismissed an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, on the basis of that Civil Judge Signature Not Verified Class-1 has jurisdiction to try this matter. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the SAN Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH case of Seth Trilokchand Kalyanmal Digambar Jain and Another Vs. Sushil Kumar SAVNER Date: 2022.04.06 10:34:27 PDT Kasliwal and Another reported in 2022(1) MPLJ 266 has held as under:-
3"14. In Badri Prasad (supra) , this Court has dealt with the meaning and interpretation of the words 'a Civil Court' occurring in Section 8 of the Trusts Act whereas in Shri Dev Mahadevji Mandir, Rehli (supra), the Court considered word, 'Court' for the purpose of an application filed under Section 26 of the Trusts Act. Thus, interpretation given by previous Bench in Badri Prasad (supra) is mainly relating to Section 8 of the Trust Act whereas subsequent judgment in Shri Dev Mahadevji Mandir, Rehli (supra) is relating to Sections 26 and 27 of the Trusts Act. Thus, both the judgments are based on different provisions of the Trusts Act and it cannot be said that there is any cleavage of opinion between the Benches.
In this case, the judgment of Badri Prasad (supra) is applicable because indisputably, the civil suit /application is filed under Section 8 of the Trusts Act, and therefore, this Court is concerned with the meaning of words 'a Civil Court'.
15. This is trite that the judgment of a Court should be understood in the fact situation of case and on the basis of governing statutory provisions. A different fact or different applicable provision may make a lot of difference in precedential value of a judgment (see: (2003) 2 SCC 111 (Bhavnagar University v/s Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited & Others).
16. In view of foregoing analysis, it can be safely held that since the words 'a Civil Court' are used in Section 8 of the Trusts Act, the learned District Judge was justified in transferring the suit before a Civil Court as per Section 3 of the M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958. In absence of any violation of law, palpable procedural impropriety or perversity, interference is declined."
7/ Relying upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Seth Trilokchand (supra), now it is clear that the words "a Civil Court" are used in Section 8 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 and the Court of the Civil Judge Class-1 is having a competent original jurisdiction for the purpose of hearing and deciding a civil suit filed under Section 8 oft he M.P. Public Trust Act.
8/ Hence, I do not find any illegality committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) Signature Not Verified SAN JUDGE trilok Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.04.06 10:34:27 PDT