Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Harishanker Das Vedanti Chela Premdas vs Mahant Maheshdas Shishya Late Laxman … on 9 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 27/2023
Harishanker Das Vedanti Chela Premdas, Aged About 52 Years,
R/o Siyaramdas Ji Ki Bagichi, Dhehar Ke Balaji, Sikar Road,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner-Defendant No.1
Versus
1. Mahant Maheshdas Shishya Late Laxman And Acharya,
Acting Pranyasi Shri Balanand Ji Math, Uniyara Rav Ji Ka
Rasta, Purani Basti, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Respondent-Plaintiff
2. Mehant Siyaramdas Chela Unknown, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Mandir Sh. Kanak Bihari Ji, Galta Road, Dilhi
Bypass Road, Jaipur.
3. Sh. Manohardas Chaturvedi S/o Unknown, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Mandir Shri Chintaharan Kale Hanumanji,
Prajapati Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
4. Sh. Jairamdas Sadhak Shishya Jagdish, R/o 251, Badi
Chavni Ashram, Durgapuram, Pani Ghat, Vrindavan,
District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. (Impleaded As Necessary
Party By The Order Of The Court).
—-Respondents-Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripunjay Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 09/07/2025
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC
against the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Additional Civil
Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate (North), Jaipur Metropolitan-II)
(for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.1169/2022, titled as
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:52:00 PM)
(2 of 4) [CR-27/2023]
“Mahant Maheshdas Vs. Hari Shankerdas Vedanti & Ors.” whereby
the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant
under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 of the Rajasthan
Public Trust Act, 1959s.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff
filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant as well
as respondent defendant Nos.2 to 4 mentioning therein that the
plaintiff is a disciple of Late Shri Laxmananandacharya. After the
death of Shri Laxmanandacharya on 31.10.2022, the plaintiff is
working as a disciple of Late Shri Laxmanandacharya but the
defendants are creating hurdle in managing the affairs of the
trust. They want to encroach upon it.
Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the
plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with
Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 before the trial
court to the effect that the said trust is a registered trust and as
per Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, the civil
court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but the trial court
vide order dated 10.01.2023 wrongly dismissed the application
filed by the defendant.
Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the
plaintiff also filed an application before the Assistant
Commissioner, Devasthan for declaring him as a trustee of the
said trust. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order
dated 10.01.2023 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the
suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the
following judgments:-
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:52:00 PM)
(3 of 4) [CR-27/2023]
(1) Kaushal Kishore Narnoli Vs. Gopal Public Trust & Ors. reported
in 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) 454;
(2) Frost International Limited Vs. Milan Developers and Builders
Private Limited & Anr. reported in (2022) SCC 633.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that
there is no dispute between the Devasthan Department and the
plaintiff but the dispute is between the plaintiff and defendants
and other persons. He further submits that the defendants want to
take illegal possession on the disputed trust and they are creating
hurdle in managing the affairs of the trust. So, the plaintiff had a
civil remedy. So, the trial court vide order dated 10.01.2023
rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under
Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust,
Act 1959. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable
to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed an application
before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan for declaring him as
a trustee of the trust. After the death of Shri
Laxmananandacharya, plaintiff has declared himself as a trustee
of the trust. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan is yet to declare
the plaintiff as a trustee of the trust. By way of the present suit,
the plaintiff wanted to manage the affairs of the trust. As per
Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 the civil court
had no jurisdiction to try the suit. So, in my considered opinion,
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:52:00 PM)
(4 of 4) [CR-27/2023]
the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the present
suit and dismissing the application filed by the defendant under
Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust
Act, 1959. So, the present revision petition filed by the defendant
deserves to be allowed.
The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is allowed.
The order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the trial court is set-aside
and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/91
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:52:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)