P.C.JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nathdwara dated 9.5.96 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 28/96 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners -defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
(2.) IT appears that the non -petitioners filed a suit against the petitioners and Tilkayatji in the court of learned Civil Judge, Nathdwara raising a dispute regarding the distribution of prasad and seeking relief of perpectual injunction against the Board and Chief Executive Officer to restrain them from interfering with Tilk Maharajji's right of distribution of prasad. The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit -filed by the plaintiff was hit by Section 31 of the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959 (Act No. 13 of 1959). Since the relief claimed by the plaintiff substantially fell within the perview of Section 31 of the Act, the suit was not maintainable in the Court of Civil Judge, Nathdwara. The learned Civil Judge heard both the parties and by the impugned order examined whether the distribution of prasad was a religious act or a secular act and after discussing the nature of the dispute involved, dismissed the application. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has very vehemently assailed the order of the learned Civil Judge on the ground that he committed illeglity or material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction when he failed to correctly grasp the nature of disputes covered by Section 31 of the Act. He in particular referred to Clause (e) of Section 31 of the Act. He submitted that the nature of the present suit is such that the plaintiff ought to have filed suit in accordance with the mandate of Section 31 of the Act. Such a suit could only be filed in the court of District Judge. In the instant case, the plaintiff filed the suit in the court of Civil Judge, Nathdwara, hence, it was not maintainable. Learned Counsel has also referred to Rule 89 of the Nathdwara Temple Rules, 1973 (for short the Rules). According to Rule 89, a provision has been made to keep in tact the present practice in vouge for the distribution of prasad. He further contended that the Board is bound to follow the direction given by the Tilkayatji in connection with the distribution of the prasad. In other words, Tilkayatji has been vested with the final authority in a matter of distribution of prasad subject however to keep the present practice in vogue intact. Learned Counsel has submitted that there has been no violation of Rule 89. The plaint, therefore, does not disclose any cause of action. The learned trial court was not justified in examining the matter from the point of view whether the above act was secular or religious.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the non -petitioners has supported the order of the learned Civil Judge on the ground that Section 31 of the Act contains some specific species of case and provides that such categories of cases shall be instituted in the court of District Judge. If the dispute raised by the plaintiff fell beyond the domain of Section 31 of the Act, the bar of Section 31 will not be applicable and the suit will be maintainable in the court of ordinary civil jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has argued that Clause (e) of Section 31 refers to other Clauses (a) to (d) contained in Section 31 of the Act. It is neither a suit for rendition of accounts or making any inquiries in relation to the matters referred herein.;