P. C. Jain, J. - (1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 23.9.1997 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Jodhpur whereby the learned Assistant Commissioner has closed the evidence of the plaintiff-non-petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-non-petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') for the registration of "Dwarkanath Mandir Sarwajanik Nyas, Phalodi" through its President, Shri Balkishan Thanvi. The petitioner has alleged that while giving descriptions as required in Section 17 of the Act, the plaintiff non-petitioner has included properties belonging to the plaintiff-petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed cross objections opposing the application of the petitioner. The Assistant Registrar, Devasthan Vibhagh, Jodhpur who has been empowered to hear such matters falling within the ambit of Section 17 of the Act started enquiry. He framed the issues on 29.4.1992. The plaintiff-non-petitioner closed its evidence on 2.4.1997. It is relevant to mention here that the plaintiff-non-petitioner consumed five long years in concluding his evidence.
(3.) Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the evidence of the defendant-petitioner on 30.4.1997. However, the evidence of the defendant-petitioner could not be recorded for one or the other reason. On some dates the Presiding Officer was not present but the witnesses of the petitioner were present from the first date i.e. from 30.4.1997. Thereafter, even on 9.7.1997, there was no negligence on the part of the defendant-petitioner. On 1.8.1997. the statement of petitioner Mahant Dinesh Kumar was recorded but it remained incomplete and, the case was fixed on (sic). On that date also, the statement of petitioner Mahant Dinesh Kumar remained incomplete and so, the case, was fixed on 3.9.1997. On 3.9.1997 also, the statement of petitioner Mahant Dinesh Kumar could not be completed and the next date fixed was 16.9.1997. On 1.6-9-1997, the petitioner Mahant Dinesh Kumar presented himself in the office of the Assistant Commissioner but the case was adjourned to 23.9.1997 as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 23.9.1997 when the petitioner Mahant Dinesh Kumar went to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, he was informed that his evidence has been ordered to be closed by the learned Assistant Commissioner by t he impugned order. Hence this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.;