SITA RAM DAS Vs. CHATURBHUJ NATHJI MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order 15th October, 1982 passed by the District Judge, Tonk, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13th July, 1982 passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Tonk on an application submitted by non -petitioner No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction in a suit filed by the non -petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner and non -petitioner No. 2.

(2.) SHRI Chaturbhuj Nath Mandir Trust, plaintiff non -petitioner No. 1 is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner was the President of the said trust. The case of the plaintiff non -petitioner is that on 26th May, 1978 the petitioner resigned as the President of the said trust and the said resignation of the petitioner was accepted on 10th July, 1978 The case of the plaintiff -non -petitioner is further that after the acceptance of his resignation the petitioner continues to describe himself as the President of the trust and non -petitioner No. 2 as the Secretary of the trust. The plaintiff -non -petitioner, therefore, filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and non -petitioner No. 2, not to use the registration No. 344 of the trust in any way and not to describe themselves as the President and the Secretary of the trust in any written material and not to collect any donation on the basis of the registered number and the name of the trust. The plaintiff -non -petitioner also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of a temporary injunction in this regard. The said application for grant of temporary injunction was. resisted by the petitioner and non -petitioner and non -petitioner No. 2. It was submitted on their behalf that the suit is not maintainable without giving notice to the Commissioner of Devsthan in view of Sub -section (1) of Section 72 of the Act and further that in view of the provisions contained in Section 73 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The petitioner and non -petitioner No. 2 also contested the application for grant of temporary injunction on merits, and submitted that the petitioner had never resigned from the office of the President of the Trust.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the said order of the Munsif the petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the District Judge, Tonk by his order dated 15th October, 1982. Before the District Judge the main contention that was urged on behalf of the petitioner was with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff -non -petitioner No. 1. The District Judge, after examining the provisions of the Act, held that the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff non -petitioner No. 1 could be entertained by the Civil Court. The District Judge also agreed with the Munsif that a prima facie case has been established by the plaintiff -non -petitioner No. 1 to show that the petitioner had resigned from the office of the President of the Trust and the said resignation had been accepted by the trustees. On the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury also the District Judge held in favour of the plaintiff non -petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, the District Judge by his order dated 15th October, 1982 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Hence this revision.