Shriram Mandir Panchkuiya Dharmik Trust Through Its Trustee Ashok Kumar vs Shri Mahant Ramgopaldas Guru Laxmandas & Ors.

The subject civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") impugning order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Registrar, Public Trust, Indore (M.P.) in case No.3/B-113/2025-26, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed.

The short facts of the case are that petitioner / Shri Ram Mandir Panchkuiya Dharmik Trust is a trust registered under the provisions of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1951") in the year 1983 and Ashok Goyal is the Trustee of the trust. The respondent No. 1 / Mahant Ramgopaldas Guru Laxmandas filed a civil suit before Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore (M.P.) impleading Ashok Goyal as Trustee of the trust seeking declaration of title on land bearing survey No. 54 admeasuring 4.43 Acres situated at village Sirpur, Tehsil Malharganj, District Indore, which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2018. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the trustees intimating to the Registrar regarding appointment of new Pujari of the mandir.

The respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1951 against the trust through President Prakash Chand Goyal seeking deletion of the land bearing survey No. 246/1, 246/2, 246/3, 246/4, 246/8, 247, 248, 249, 250, 242/1 and 241 of Village Sirpur, Tehsil Malharganj, District Indore from the list of the trust properties maintained with the Registrar, Public Trust and from the register maintained by the Registrar.

The trust filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the properties were registered as property of the trust in the year 1983 and after a period of 35 years, the application has been moved, which is not maintainable and same is liable to be rejected. The application was opposed by the respondent and Registrar, Public Trust by impugned order dated 13.06.2025 dismissed the application. After the dismissal of the application, the petitioner / trust preferred Civil Revision No. 809/2025 impugning the order of dismissal, wherein the respondent No. 1 raised the objection of maintainability of the civil revision on the ground that the Registrar does not fall under the definition of "Court" as provided in Section 2(1) of Act, 1951 and resultantly, the civil revision filed under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable against any order passed by the Registrar of Public Trust. Thereafter, the revision petition was withdrawn with a liberty to take recourse to such remedies as are available under law.

During the pendency of the civil revision, one writ petition was preferred by the petitioner / trust through trustee Ashok Kumar Goyal assailing the order dated 13.06.2025, wherein an order was passed on 08.05.2026 and the Registrar, Public Trust was permitted to proceed with the pending proceedings. However, the Registrar was restrained from passing the final order till the next date of hearing. The objection of maintainability of the writ petition was also raised by the respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition No. 16453/2026, which was withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to take recourse to such legal remedies as may be available under the law on 11.05.2026, however, for a period of 15 days, interim order passed on 08.05.2026 was continued. Thereafter, the subject civil revision has been preferred.

In this civil revision, once again, the respondent No. 1 has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision on the ground that the Registrar, Public Trust does not fall under the definition of the "Court" provided in Section 2(1) of the Act, 1951 and the civil revision can be maintained only against the orders passed by Court, therefore, the subject civil revision is not maintainable.

The petitioner replied to the application that when the civil revision was preferred by the Trustee Shri Prakash Chand Goyal bearing Civil Revision No. 809/2025, similar objection was raised by the respondent No. 1 and the same was withdrawn. When the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 16453/2026, the respondent No. 1 again raised the objection of maintainability and the same was withdrawn by order dated 11.05.2026 with a liberty to take recourse to such legal remedies as may be available under the law and now once again, the respondent No. 1 has raised the objection of maintainability in the instant civil revision, which are not sustainable and liable to be rejected.

Heard, Shri Sameer Anant Athawale, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Veer Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Nitin Phadke, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 on the question of maintainability of instant Civil Revision.

Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 submits that the instant civil revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 115 of CPC is not maintainable, as the impugned order was passed by Registrar of Public Trust under the provisions of Act, 1951 and the Registrar of Public Trust has not been included in the definition of "Court" as prescribed in Section 2(1) of the Act, 1951 and as the Registrar of Public Trust does not fall within the definition of a "Subordinate Court", no civil revision is maintainable under Section 115 of CPC against any order passed by the Registrar of Public Trust. He further submits that the definition of "Court" has been provided in Section 3 of CPC also and the Registrar, Public Trust does not fall within the definition of a "Court" prescribed in CPC too and, therefore, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable.

Learned senior counsel further submits that as per Section 115 of the CPC, this Court is having revisionary power over the Civil Courts and the Courts subordinate to this Court. He submits that this issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Umedi Bhai and others V/s Collector Sehore and others, 1969 JLJ 873, wherein the Division Bench has held that the Registrar acting under the M.P. Public Trust Act has no inherent powers to issue a temporary injunction against a party not to proceed with the execution of a decree against the property of Public Trust and the proceedings before the Registrar are not judicial proceedings and the Registrar, not being a "Court", cannot exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC or otherwise.

Learned senior counsel further submits that earlier, Civil Revision No. 809/2025 was filed by one Trustee Shri Prakash Chand Goyal on behalf of the trust, which was withdrawn with a liberty to take recourse of such remedies as are available under the law. A Writ Petition No. 16453/2026 was also filed by the trust through Trustee Ashok Kumar Goyal, and the same was also withdrawn by order dated 11.05.2026 with a liberty to take recourse to such legal remedies as may be available under the law and now, Ashok Kumar Goyal has preferred this civil revision on behalf of the trust impugning the same order, which was impugned in Civil Revision No. 809/2025 and Writ Petition No. 16453/2026. He submits that the filing of this civil revision amounts to abuse of the process of law and consequently, the revision petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Shri Sameer Anant Athawale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the application was moved under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC before the Registrar, Public Trust for rejection of the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Act, 1951 and the application was not dismissed by the Registrar, Public Trust on the ground that the Registrar is not a "Civil Court" and the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are not maintainable, on the contrary, the Registrar considered the merits of the application and erroneously dismissed the same on merits. He further submits that the Registrar has usurped the powers of Civil Court by deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, therefore, the instant civil revision petition is maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, 1951, which provides that at the time of deciding the applications, the Registrar is empowered to exercise the powers conferred under certain provisions of CPC. He further submits that when a writ petition was preferred by the present petitioner, the objection of maintainability was raised by the respondent No. 1 and considering the objections raised by the respondent No. 1, the writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law and when this civil revision is preferred, once again, the respondent No. 1 is raising the objection of maintainability and in this way, the respondent No. 1 is trying to create hurdle in the consideration of the case on the merits. He prays for dismissal of the application filed by the respondent No. 1.

Considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. The sole question involved to decide the application preferred by the respondent No. 1 is that "Whether the Registrar, Public Trust falls under the definition of "Court" for maintaining a civil revision against the order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust?"

It would be profitable to reproduce the definition of "Court" described in the Act, 1951 in Section 2, which reads as under:

In Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the definition of "Subordinate Court" has been prescribed under Section 3, which reads as under:

This Court is having revisional power under Section 115 of the CPC, which reads as under:

From conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, 1951 and Section 3 of the CPC, it appears that the Registrar, Public Trust cannot be treated as a "Court" because Section 2 provides the definition of "Court", as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District and the Registrar, Public Trust is not a Civil Court. The Subordinate Court has been defined in Section 3 of the CPC and by no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that the Registrar, Public Trust falls under the definition of the "Subordinate Court". By mere usurping the rights of Civil Court by deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Registrar cannot be treated as a "Court". Similarly, by Section 28 of the Act, 1951 some powers provided under CPC have been extended to the Registrar for the purpose of investigation and enquiry, but that will not change the status of the Registrar into a "Civil Court" and in considered view of this Court, the Registrar is not a Civil Court.

Reference may be had to the judgment of Division Bench in the matter of Badri Prasad Tiwari V/s State of M.P. and others (Writ Appeal No.1081/2020, decided on 29.09.2021), wherein the Division Bench of this Court considering the maintainability of writ appeal in a matter, wherein the claim was made that from conjoint reading of Section 28 & 29 of the Act, 1951, it is clear that the Registrar has same powers which a Court has and, therefore, it must be held that the Registrar under the Act, 1951 is a "Court". The Division Bench considered the definition of the Registrar under Section 2(1) of the Act, 1951 as well as the provisions of Section 26 & 28 and held that what distinguishes a "Court" from an Administrative or Domestic Tribunal is that it is only a Court, which represents the judicial power of the sovereign, by which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide controversies between its subjects or between itself and its subjects, whether the rights relate to life, liberty or property. The Division Bench has held that Registrar is not a Court though he exercised the powers of Court, which are flowing from CPC, but for the limited purpose of holding an enquiry and not for the purpose of any kind of adjudication.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2257/2024 (Brajesh Sharma V/s Collector / Registrar, Public Trust and others, decided on 16.05.2024) has held that from plain reading of the sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of Act, 1951, it is clear that order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust can be challenged by the aggrieved party by filing a suit as provided under Section 8 of the Act, 1951 and the Court can examine in a civil suit that whether the power under Section 9 of the Act, 1951 was rightly exercised by the Registrar or not ? The orders of the Registrar can be corrected by the Civil Court. Thus, the Registrar is not a "Court".

Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.656/2009 by order dated 19.02.2026 has held that it is settled that the Principal Civil Court is having jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 27 of the Act, 1951 for appointing new Board of Trustees and as the Registrar is not a Court, the Registrar cannot pass an order for appointing Board of Trustees. A Coordinate Bench in the matter of Shri Dev Mahadev Ji Mandir V/s Rajesh Kumar and another (MA No.2170/2009 by order dated 21.08.2012) has categorically held that the term Court has also been defined in Section 2(1) of the Act, 1951, according to which, it means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district and Registrar is not a "Court".

In view of the above prospectus, by no stretch of imagination, the Registrar may be considered as a Court and according to Section 115 of the CPC, the revisional powers of the High Court are in respect of any case, which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereof. As the Registrar is neither a Court nor subordinate to the High Court, the civil revision is not maintainable arising out of an order passed by the Registrar.

Resultantly, the application moved by the respondent No. 1 for dismissal of the subject civil revision is allowed. It is held that civil revision is not maintainable assailing the impugned order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by the petitioner was dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 in appropriate proceedings before the Appropriate Forum.

At the time of disposing of the writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 11.05.2026 passed in Writ Petition No.16453/2026 continued the interim order dated 08.05.2026 passed in the petition for a period of 15 days. Considering the same, it is directed that the Registrar, Public Trust may proceed with the pending proceedings, however, no final order will be passed by the Registrar for a further period of 15 days from today.