HARIGOPAL SHARMA Vs. NAVRATAN JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been preferred by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 10 challenging the order dtd. 3/11/2025 passed by the District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 126/2025 (Navratan Joshi vs. Harigopal Sharma and Ors.), vide which application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code read with Sec. 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1959"), has been rejected.

(2.) The facts in short are that plaintiff - Navratan Joshi (respondent No. 1 herein) has filed a civil suit for declaration and cancellation of the election of defendant No. 1 (petitioner No. 1 herein) to the post of President, Akhil Bharatvarshiya Shri Mahrishi Gautam Education and Charitable Trust and permanent injunction before the court of District Judge, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court"). The suit challenges unopposed election dtd. 26/3/2024 of defendant No. 1 - Harigopal Sharma as President of the registered trust, alleging that the election was illegal, biased and conducted in violation of the trust's constitution and principles of natural justice. The plaintiff claims his valid nomination was wrongly rejected through arbitrary rules, absence of an opportunity of hearing, manipulated timelines and collusion by election officials to ensure defendant No.1's victory. He seeks cancellation of the election, declaration of it as void, directions for a fresh fair election and an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from misusing trust property and funds.

(3.) During the pendency of suit, defendant Nos. 1 and 10 (petitioners herein) have moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code read with Sec. 73 of the Act of 1959 seeking rejection of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has challenged unopposed election dtd. 26/3/2024 of defendant No. 1 as President of defendant No. 11 - trust and has sought that the said election be declared illegal and void. Such a dispute falls under Sec. 73 of the Act of 1959, hence, the suit is barred by law and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has already raised identical objections before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, where the matter is pending and fixed for hearing on 18/7/2025. The plaintiff has also suppressed material facts regarding earlier proceedings and has not approached the Court with clean hands. In view of the said pending proceedings and concealment of facts, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.