Judgment :- K.A. Swami, C.J. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 11. 1991 passed in W.P.No. 11699 of 1983. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner therein has come up in the appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 3. 1983 passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in R.P.No.40 of 1980 holding that Thiru Nataraja Mudaliar, father of the petitioner and Thiru Subramania Mudaliar, father of the 3rd respondent were recognised as hereditary trustees, therefore, the 3rd respondent being the heir of Thiru Subramania Mudaliar must be declared to have been the hereditary trustee along with Thiru Nataraja Mudaliar. 2. 1. Learned single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments on the ground that undisputedly, the 3rd respondent is the daughter of Subramania Mudaliar, who was recognised to be the hereditary trustee. Further, the Commissioner for H.R. & C.E. held by the order dated 19th April, 1975 in R.P.Nos.198 and 199 of 1974 that it was for the parties to establish before the appropriate forum as to who was entitled to succeed. Learned single Judge has also referred to the O.S.No.7396 of 1975 filed by the 3rd respondent, which was dismissed for default. 2. On taking into consideration all these aspects, learned single judge has held that this is not a case, in which interference is called for, as any interference would result in defeating the right of the 3rd respondent. Learned single Judge has specifically observed thus: .“On considering the entire history of the case, there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order because the claim of the third respondent is also justifiable and that cannot be defeated by any technicalities as put forward by the petitioner. So long as there is no inhibition against the right to recognise the third respondent as one of the hereditary trustees of the temple in question the impugned order cannot be set aside.” .3. So long as there is no inhibition against the right to recognise the third respondent as one of the hereditary trustees of the temple in question the impugned order cannot be set aside.” .3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as the suit filed by the 3rd respondent was dismissed for default, as such by reason of the provisions contained in Rule 9 of O.9 of Code of Civil Procedure, the 3rd respondent is precluded from bringing the suit on the same cause of action, therefore, it shall have to be held that she has lost the right of hereditary trusteeship. It is also further contended that the Commissioner once having directed the 3rd respondent to go to a civil court and establish her right, could not have again exercised the revisional power and held that the 3rd respondent being the heir of the deceased Subramania Mudaliar is also entitled to act as hereditary trustee. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v. Vaithinatha Gurukkal and others, (1974)1 M.L.J. 406 , in which on considering Sec.57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 which is equiva- lent to Sec.63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it has been held that the Deputy Commissioner is empovered to decide whether the trusteeship in relation to a religious institution is hereditary or not and it is not permissible to decide as to whether a particular person is entitled to function as hereditary trustee at a particular point of time with reference to a temple, the hereditary nature of trusteeship of which has been admitted. 4. It may be pointed out that it is not disputed that the original trustee who one Narayanaswamy. He had 3 sons by name Arumuga Mudaliar, Subramania Mudaliar and Nataraja Mudaliar. The line of Arumuga Mudaliar has become extinct, whereas the 3rd respondent is the heir of Subramania Mudaliar and so also, the petitioner/appellant is the their of Thiru Nataraja Mudaliar. On an earlier occasion in O.A.No.161 of 1954, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department, Coimbatore, by the order dated 12. 1955 had recognised Subramania Mudaliar and Nataraja Mudaliar as hereditary trustees. On an earlier occasion in O.A.No.161 of 1954, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department, Coimbatore, by the order dated 12. 1955 had recognised Subramania Mudaliar and Nataraja Mudaliar as hereditary trustees. A copy of that order is produced at page 1 of the typed set of papers and that order was not challenged. No doubt, subsequent to the death of Nataraja Mudaliar and Subramania Mudaliar, in the proceedings in R.P.Nos.198 and 199 of 1974, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. by the order dated 19th April, 1975 directed the parlies to approach the civil court for decision as to the right of trusteeship. It is also true that thereafter, the 3rd respondent had filed a suit for declaration that she is the hereditary trustee of the temple in question, but that suit was not decided on merits, but it was dismissed for default. Subsequently, by the impugned order, the Commissioner has reiterated the order passed on 12. 1955 recognising Subramania Mudaliar and Nataraja Mudaliar as the heirs of Narayanaswamy as the hereditary trustees of the temple. Therefore, in the light of these undisputed facts, the contention of the petitioner/appellant becomes highly technical. In a jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, court is required to see that justice does not suffer on account of any technical objection. The fact that O.9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure precludes the 3rd respondent from approaching the civil court on the same cause of action, does not mean that the right of the 3rd respondent as hereditary trustee for all purposes has been lost. No court or no authority has declared that she is not entitled to function as hereditary trustee. In addition to this, if the petitioner/appellant is aggrieved by the order passed under Sec.63 of the Act, he has a right of suit. He can approach the Civil court and establish that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to act as hereditary trustee, even though she is no other than the daughter of his own brother by name Subramania Mudaliar, who was recognised to be the hereditary trustee. As such, as the petitioner/appellant is not deprived of his right to establish his exclusive trusteeship, we do not consider that it would be in the interest of justice to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner for H.R. & C.E. which in our view is in conformity with justice. As such, as the petitioner/appellant is not deprived of his right to establish his exclusive trusteeship, we do not consider that it would be in the interest of justice to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner for H.R. & C.E. which in our view is in conformity with justice. At the same time we keep the question open to be decided by the civil court. Hence, we agree with the learned single Judge and decline to interfere. Consequently, we dismiss the writ appeal. However, we make it clear that it is open to the petitioner/appellant to approach the civil court and establish his exclusive right of trusteeship, in that even that suit be decided in accordance with the pleadings of the parties and evidence that would be adduced and not with reference to any of the findings recorded in these proceedings including our judgment. We keep open all the contentions.