JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. DR. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision has been filed by the revision petitioner, who is the defendant before the trial court being aggrieved by the order dt.18.04.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.35-A/2016 by the Court of Fourth Additional District Judge Vidisha, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC and another application under Section 92 read with Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC and Section 8 of M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act of 1951) have been decided.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that defendant No.1 created a Public Trust for his ownership land by executing a trust deed registered with the Registrar Public Trust, Vidisha. At the time of creation of the Trust, he had appointed five trustees and one late Shri Malchand Agrawal, as President of the Trust. The Trust Deed provide for total 15 numbers of trustees, thus nine posts of trustees were vacant and due to death of Shri Malchand Agrawal, post of President had also fallen vacant. Defendant No.1 - founder of the Trust appointed six new trustees and petitioner as President of the aforesaid Trust by submitting an application on

(3.) 04.2012 under intimation to the Registrar Public Trust Vidisha, on the basis of which Registrar Public Trust in exercise of its authority under Section 25 of the Act of 1951 passed the order dt.15.5.2012 and entered the names of six new trustees i.e. defendants No.3 to 8 and petitioner as President. 3. Against the said order dt.15.05.2012 of the Registrar Public Trust, the plaintiff had filed W.P.No.234 of 2013 on 08.01.2013. This Writ Petition was withdrawn on the objection taken by the revision petitioner with liberty to file afresh. Thereafter, on 06.05.2013, plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.11A/2013 and as per the averments in the revision petition, such suit was filed without serving notice under Section 80 of CPC on the Registrar of the Public Trust and therefore on the objection being taken said suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt.05.10.2013. Thereafter plaintiffs again filed a suit on 09.10.2013 challenging the order dt.15.05.2012 to be illegal. After receiving the notice, defendants who are the revision petitioner before this court had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC alleging that the trial court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the order of the Registrar of Public Trust passed by him in exercise of his powers under Section 25 of the Act of 1951.