JUDGMENT 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. 4. I have heard Mr. 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. 4. I have heard Mr. Prabhat Ojha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. R.K. Thanvi, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present revision petition. He has contended that a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can only be filed when the order under revision is passed by any Court subordinate to High Court. He has submitted that in the instant case, the impugned order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur." The Assistant Registrar is not a Court as defined in Section 2(6) of the Act. The Assistant Registrar is a persona designate who has been clothed with certain judicial powers in order to perform certain specific acts which in the opinion of the legislature ought to be performed on the pattern of a judicial Court. Section 67 of the Act provides that the Officers holding inquiries under the Act shall have the powers of the Civil Court regarding proof of facts by affidavits; summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; compelling the production of documents and issuing of commissions. Section 68 of the Act further provides that such inquiries shall be treated to be judicial proceedings and in order to facilitate the procedure of inquiries, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Court so far as they may not be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act. According to Mr. Thanvi, though the Officer named in Section 17 of the Act for making inquiries regarding registration of a Trust has been invested with certain powers akin to judicial powers, such Officers cannot be termed as Judicial Officers or Court. 6. According to Mr. Thanvi, the Assistant Commissioner is merely a persona designate performing certain specific statutory functions on the pattern of judicial Court. 6. According to Mr. Thanvi, the Assistant Commissioner is merely a persona designate performing certain specific statutory functions on the pattern of judicial Court. Hence, the office of Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan cannot be said to be a 'Court'. He has, therefore, argued that this revision petition cannot be entertained under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In support of his contention, Mr. Thanvi has placed reliance on Onkar Dutta v. B.H.R. Trust Board, AIR 1960 Pat 164 ; Jagannadha Rao v. Venkateswara Rao, AIR 1960 Andhra Pradesh 49 . Bashir Khan v. Ranger, Social Vaniki, 1994 (2) WLC (Raj) 573 and Chatarlal v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand, 1997 (1) WLC (Raj) 560 . 7. On the other hand. Mr. Prabhat Ojha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the provisions contained in Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Act and submitted that though the Assistant Commissioner is an Officer in the of Devasthan Services, he has been invested with certain judicial powers and while exercising these powers, he has to work as a Civil Court. Even the proceedings of the inquiries conducted by Assistant Commissioners have been termed as Judicial proceedings. He has, therefore, argued that virtually the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is an order passed by t he Court and hence this revision petition is maintainable. 8. In the alternative, Mr. Ojha has contended that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that this revision petition against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhagh is not maintainable, then this revision petition may be treated as a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and may be decided on merits in the interest of the justice so that the petitioner may get justice. Mr. Ojha has submitted that a somewhat similar view was taken by this Court in Bashir Khan's case (supra) and Chatarlal's case (supra). He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Bajrangdas v. Vishva Karma Jangid Panchayat, 1996 DNJ (Raj) 681 . 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar find substance in the preliminary objection raised by Mr. He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Bajrangdas v. Vishva Karma Jangid Panchayat, 1996 DNJ (Raj) 681 . 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar find substance in the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Thanvi; It may be stated that it is only the Courts that are subjected to the authority of the High Court that could answer the description of 'Courts' indicated in Section 115, C.P.C. In considering the question as to whether a particular Court in exercising certain powers conferred upon it is acting as a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court or merely as a persona designate, the important point to be investigated is the source of the authority of the Presiding Officer. It might also be relevant to consider the nature of the proceedings in the action taken therein. 10. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner was considering the application under Section 17 of the Act for the registration of the non-petitioner Trust. Such matters are being dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner The Assistant Commissioner is appointed by the State Govt, to discharge various functions as provided in the Act. He is an Officer of the Devasthan Services of the Govt, of Rajasthan. In order to decide the matter regarding registration of a Trust, such; an Officer is required to make inquiries. Wherever there is a provision in any Act for conducting the inquiries, a resort is made to the judicial procedure. Thus, such proceedings adopted by such Officers are being called as judicial proceedings. Nonetheless the Officer performing such functions is neither a Judicial Officer nor his office can be termed to a 'Court'. In fact, he is a persona designate and has been assigned to a particular job by adopting the procedure of a Court. Hence, the officer of the Assistant Commissioner making inquiries under Section 17 of the Act and exercising powers under Sections 67 and 68 of the Act cannot be equated with as a judicial Court as his office does not fall within the category of 'Court' as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Civil Court Manual. In these circumstances. In these circumstances. I hold that the office of Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Govt, of Rajasthan is not a Court subordinate to the High Court and as such, it is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction lender Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 11. In this view of the matter, I hold that this revision petition is not maintainable. 12. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that this revision petition may be treated as writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and it may be decided on merits so that the petitioner may jet justice. I am inclined to consider this prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In this connection, I may refer to Bashir Khan's case (supra) and Chatarlal's case (supra), wherein this Court ordered to treat the revision petitions as writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. I, therefore, treat this revision petition's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and direct the office to register it as writ petition. 14. Now, I propose to decide this writ petition on merits as prayed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. From the perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court has been indulgent in accommodating the non-petitioner in adjourning the case for five long years in order to complete his evidence. In the case of the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have been vigilant in producing their evidence. The petitioner No. 1 remained-present almost on all the dates fixed by the Court for this purpose. However, his statement could not be completed on two occasions. This was very improper on the part of the learned Assistant Commissioner not to complete his statement even after two dates,However, when the petitioner was not present in the earlier part of the day, his evidence was closed and the case was fixed for hearing arguments. 15. This Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur v. Munshi Singh, 1994 DNJ(Raj) 665 even went to the extent of holding that both the parties must be given equal opportunities for producing evidence. 16. 15. This Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur v. Munshi Singh, 1994 DNJ(Raj) 665 even went to the extent of holding that both the parties must be given equal opportunities for producing evidence. 16. For the above reasons, I accept this writ petition and set aside the order dated 23.9.1997 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur closing the evidence of the defendant-petitioners. The petitioners are allowed to lead their evidence on payment of costs of Rs. 500/- to be paid to the non-petitioner within a period of one month from today. If the petitioner feels that his witnesses are to be summoned, he must file Process Fees and summonses before the learned trial Court sufficiently in advance so that the witnesses can be summoned on the appointed day.Petition allowed *******