JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up with the consent of parties for hearing. 2. In the present revision application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 4-9-1995 passed below Exh. 69 in Regular Civil Suit No. 113/1987, whereby application Exh. 69 is rejected by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar. It would be appropriate to mention at this stage itself that the point which the Court was to decide by way of this application Exh. 69 was regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to try the very suit itself 3. The present petitioner, who happened to be the original defendant was facing Regular Civil Suit No. 113/87 which was initiated by the respondent/plaintiff in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, for declaration that the panch mandal - the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property by virtue of sale-deed, dated 5-5-1977 and further declaration that the registered document dated 31-10-1983 was null and void and that under the said document the defendant did not acquire any right in the suit property. Needless to mention that necessary relief by way of injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff was sought for. 4. Property having house No. 5454 C.T.S. No. 5658 admeasuring 23.4 sq. mtrs. is the subject matter of the suit. It would not be necessary at this juncture to advert to the complete facts of the present case. Suffice it would be if referred to the facts which are necessary for the decision of the present application Exh. 69. 5. As per the contentions of the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged, owned and possessed by one Shri Shankarrao Dajiba Misal and the character of the same appear to be the self-acquired property. This Shankarrao left for heavenly abode on 29th December, 1969 and was survived by his wife - Warubai and daughter - Chandrabhagabai, naturally who succeeded to the ownership of the property. The contention of the plaintiff is that Warubai executed a Will and since she belonged to the community of "Ladwani", the said Will was in favour of "Ladwani Samast Panch Committee". Needless to mention that the property was to be utilized for the welfare and betterment of that community itself for the various purposes as are mentioned in the Will. 6. Needless to mention that the property was to be utilized for the welfare and betterment of that community itself for the various purposes as are mentioned in the Will. 6. On notice, the present applicant - original defendant resisted the claim through his written statement Exh. 21. Most of all the contentions appear to have been denied. The learned Judge of the trial Court as per the procedure, framed necessary issues at Exh. 57 on 10th July, 1991. As many as 15 issues are framed and the relevant issues for the decision of the present petition are the issues 12, 13 and 14. Issue No. 12 relates to the jurisdiction of the Court and issue No. 13 is as regards maintainability of the suit in view of the specific provision of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Issue No. 14 related to suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. On 26th August, 1992. Exh. 69 came to be filed at the instance of the defendant before the trial Court for deciding the preliminary issue and to be precise issues Nos. 12, 13 and 14. 8. The learned Judge of the trial Court also after necessary evidence in respect thereof decided not to treat the issues as preliminary issues and he rejected the application Exh. 69 by his order dated 2nd September, 1993. It appears that the proceedings changed the track as the unsuccessful defendant in that application Exh. 69 approached the High Court through Civil Revision Application No. 644/1994 challenging the order dated 2nd September, 1993. This Court on 7th September 1994 heard the matter finally by making the rule returnable forthwith and after hearing the parties, by its judgment and order dated 7th September, 1994, allowed the revision application directing the learned Judge of the trial Court to treat issue No. 12 as preliminary issue and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. This order is at page 12 of the paper book of this revision application. This order is at page 12 of the paper book of this revision application. After the matter was sent back by this Court, the learned Judge of the trial Court heard the matter on issue No. 12 treating it as a preliminary issue which reads as "whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit?" The learned Judge of the trial Court, who dealt with the matter, through his well reasoned order, reached to the conclusion that the said Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. It is this order, which is under challenge by way of the present revision application. 9. Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, vehemently urged that it is section 31 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, which makes it clear that Civil Court cannot hear and decide the suit filed for enforcement of the rights on behalf of the public trust which is not registered. According to Shri Deshmukh, the question as to whether the property in question is a public trust property or not is a matter exclusively within the domain and jurisdiction of the authority under the Bombay Public Trust Act, and as such Civil Court cannot be said to have the jurisdiction to say anything about the character of that property. In short Shri Deshmukh wanted to suggest that the learned Judge did commit a mistake in assuming the jurisdiction, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 10. As against the argument of Shri Deshmukh, Shri Bajpai, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present respondent - original plaintiff, argued that the order passed by the Court below cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner, nor can it be said that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Shri Bajpai further specifically pointed out that section 31 of the Bombay Public Trust Act specifically refers to the word, "public trust which has not been registered under this Act" and, therefore, Shri Bajpai states that the bar created to hear and decide the suits under section 31 of the Trust Act, at least per se in the instant matter, cannot be said to be applicable and cannot be made operative in the present case and, therefore, the order passed by the Court below needs to be sustained. 11. I have gone through the matter and heard the matter at length. 11. I have gone through the matter and heard the matter at length. The point which constantly was pinching the mind of the Court was as regards as to what was the exact matter before this High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 644/1994. The parties, therefore were specifically directed to produce the copy of the revision memo referred to above and surprisingly the thought which struck to the mind of the Court dovetailed with the contents of the revision application. It is pertinent to note that in this revision application wherein the order dated 2nd September, 1993 was challenged, a specific contention was made by the revisionist in that petition that the order dated 2nd September, 1993 passed below Exh. 69 in Regular Civil Suit No. 113/87 was sought to be quashed and set aside and further it was specifically prayed that application Exh. 69 which was filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 113/87 be allowed. It is pertinent to note that even the contents of the revision memo in Civil Revision Application No. 644/94 specifically refer to all the three issues which was the subject matter of decision below Exh. 69. This Court specifically directed the lower Court to decide only one point as a preliminary issue i.e. "Whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit?". The rest of the issues were not directed to be tried as preliminary issues. The trial Court strictly in accordance with the directions of this Court decided the issue after affording the parties opportunity to put up their say before the Court and the result to which it arrived at was rejection of Exh. 69 by order dated 4th September, 1995, further holding that the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Now, it is the second round of litigation which is initiated at the instance of the present applicant -original defendant saying that the order is wrong and further that the learned Judge according to the applicant, overlooked the provision of section 31 of the Trust Act. In short, Shri Deshmukh wanted to suggest that it is nothing but nimbly stepping out of the legal periphery. In short, Shri Deshmukh wanted to suggest that it is nothing but nimbly stepping out of the legal periphery. It is pertinent to note that issue No. 13 specifically refers to and for the benefit, I would reproduce the same, as under : "Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act?" If this specific issue was there for consideration at the time of decision by this Court in earlier revision application and when this issue inspite of being there has not been either pressed by the party or is not decided by this Court, would it be appropriate on the part of the present applicant to come up before this Court again taking the same issue though pretending it to be coming out of the order, dated 4th September, 1995. In view of this, it would be nothing but taking undue advantage of the provisions of law for unnecessarily protracting the litigation and this was the specific purpose as to why this Court was inclined and insisting to look into the contents of earlier Civil Revision Application No. 644/1994. In the view of this Court, it would not be correct for the parties to unnecessarily get involved in additional offshoots of litigation. It is also necessary at this stage to note that this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 644/1994 directed only one issue to be decided as preliminary issue, that means the other two issues were not to be decided as preliminary issues. The said decision is unchallenged and hence final. 12. Even on merits the order dated 4th September, 1995 is just and proper, particularly when the learned Judge has referred to the relevant extracts from the pleadings of the parties when the learned Judge has observed that : "The plaintiff does not appear to be a trust, but actually is a panch mandal." It is pertinent to note that there is no issue to the effect that whether the plaintiff is a trust at all and then whether it is a trust registered or not. When this basic issue is not there, then the question as regards straight way invoking the provisions of section 31 of the Trust Act so as to bar the jurisdiction of the Court does not arise. When this basic issue is not there, then the question as regards straight way invoking the provisions of section 31 of the Trust Act so as to bar the jurisdiction of the Court does not arise. Ultimately, this is a matter which will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence that would come up before the Court and even at appropriate time on the basis of the evidence the Court has every opportunity to give relevant findings on the same. However, that does not mean that the said issue would at this stage be said to be a bar for the Court to even entertain the suit itself and to try the same. 13. I do not find that there is any irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court in the instant matter. The order is neither without jurisdiction nor perverse in any manner. The order passed by the learned Judge is just and proper and in the circumstances the same deserves no interference. Revision Application stands rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged. Application rejected.