Honble MADAN, J.–These two writ petitions since involve common question of facts challenging one and the same order dated 10.2.99 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, who acted as a Receiver to the Dargaha Miran Saheb Taragarh (Ajmer) are being decided by this common order. (2). Undisputed facts are that under a Scheme framed by the then Judicial Assistant Commissioner and Subordinate Judge Ist Class Ajmer while deciding a civil suit No.213/1894 (Najar Ali vs. Gulzar Ali) under judgment and decree dated 27.10.1896 (Ann.1) the Dargah known as `Dargah Hajrat Miran Saheb situated at Taragarh (Ajmer) was being managed by a committee (constituted under that scheme and aforesaid decree), which consisted of three members out of which two are elected by the Khadims of the Dargah while 3rd one is called as President to be nominated by the Court of Civil Judge who is also supposed to resolve internal disputes as to the Khadims who constitute a school of voters for two members of the Management Committee. (3). A dispute at hand arose when an application (WP No.3607/99) (Ann.2) was moved by respondent Nos.1 to 4 (WP No.896/99) on 6.1.99 for inclusion of 32 persons (respondent Nos.2 to 33 - WP No.3607/99) by treating them as Khadims of the Dargah in the voters list for the election of the Members of the Management Committee, scheduled to 21.2.99 before the Receiver cum Competent Authority of the Dargah, i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer. Objections were raised by the petitioners on 9.2.99 (Ann.6 WP No.896/99) contending inter-alia that a suit of these applicants ancestors for declaration and claiming themselves as Khadims had already been dismissed, against which an appeal has still been pending before the District Judge, Ajmer, therefore, pending decision of that appeal or suit itself the respondent No.1 to 4 (applicants) have no right to get them enlisted in the voters list as Khadims. (4). These objections of the petitioners and application of respondent Nos.1 to 4 were decided by the impugned order dated 10.2.99 (Ann.7 WP No.896/99) though allowing the application for inclusion of 32 persons in the voter list of the election dated 21.2.99 as Khadims of the Dargah, but rejecting objection dated 9.2.99 of the petitioners. (4). These objections of the petitioners and application of respondent Nos.1 to 4 were decided by the impugned order dated 10.2.99 (Ann.7 WP No.896/99) though allowing the application for inclusion of 32 persons in the voter list of the election dated 21.2.99 as Khadims of the Dargah, but rejecting objection dated 9.2.99 of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners though preferred Civil Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 10.2.99 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer but this Court by its order dated 18.2.99 holding the impugned order as having been passed by a persona designata, directed to treat Civil Revision Petition No.172/99 as Writ Petition. Hence, that petition No.172/99 was registered as Writ Petition No.896/99 and thereafter similar petition as No.3607/99 was instituted by the petitioner - Panchayat Khuddam (Sayeed Zadgam) of the Dargah through its Joint Secretary Syed Ramjan Ali impleading 32 persons as respondent Nos.2 to 33, and thereby claimed same relief as sought in earlier WP No.896/99 of the objectors for setting aside the inclusion of names of allegedly 32 Khadims (respondents Nos. 2 to 33) in the voters list of the election dated 21.2.99 of the Management Committee of the Dargah under impugned order dated 10.2.99. (5). The result of election dated 21.2.99 was stayed by this Courts order dated 19.2.1999. By order dated 12.4.99, Syed Salim Ali on his application was directed to be arrayed as respondent No.6 to WP No.896/99. The stay order dated 19.2.99 continued by extension under orders passed from time to time when the respondents learned counsel were also directed to file reply to the writ petition but curiously enough no reply has yet been filed despite the fact that the writ petitions were admitted for hearing long back on 12.12.2000, when the matter was ordered to be listed for orders on the stay petition on 12.11.2001 and thereafter also on various dates the respondents were directed to file reply but all in vain and in the meanwhile stay order dated 19.2.99 continued. Ultimately during hearing on the stay petition, on 20.7.2001, stay order dated 19.2.99 was modified and the Election Officer was directed to count votes and declare the result but not to implement the same and produce it before this Court in a sealed cover. Ultimately during hearing on the stay petition, on 20.7.2001, stay order dated 19.2.99 was modified and the Election Officer was directed to count votes and declare the result but not to implement the same and produce it before this Court in a sealed cover. Accordingly, the result of election dated 21.2.99 was produced in a sealed envelope by letter dated 1.8.01 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer which was opened in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and as per which, two candidates, Syed Shahjad Ali and Ghulam Imam have been declared as Members of the Management Committee from among all the Khadims enlisted in the voters list. (6). Panchayat Khuddam (Syed Zadgam) (petitioner in WP No.3607/99) is a registered body of Khadims. No doubt, by virtue of the scheme having been framed under a decree dated 27.10.1896 in Civil Suit No.213/1896 (Ann.1), wherein disputes between Khadims and Muttawalli as to the management of the Dargah affairs had arisen in 1894, the Managing Committee has been represented by two Khadims duly elected among themselves in an election under the supervision of such person as appointed by the Court. (7). Undisputably Naseer Ali (respondent No.1) had applied in 1978 for inclusion of some of Khadims in the voters list but that application was dismissed, against which civil suit No.356/78 was also instituted before the Munsif Ajmer claiming themselves legal heirs of Kherullah for declaring them as khadims and inclusion of their names in the voters list. But, admittedly that suit was dismissed on having abated under order dated 23.9.93 and against which an appeal had been filed and has since then been pending before the appellate Court. (8). The applicants (respondents) concealing aforesaid facts, again applied for inclusion of their names in the voters list of Khadims on 6.1.99 vide Ann.2 (WP No.3607/99) claiming themselves as legal heirs of Khubullah and Kherullah who had shifted to Malva earlier whereby their names could not be there in the voters list and now has since shifted to Ajmer so their names be included. (9). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions so also material on record. Despite having afforded various chances to the respondents learned counsel, no reply to these writ petitions has ever been filed, so this Court has no option except to decide them on the basis of documents placed on record. (9). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions so also material on record. Despite having afforded various chances to the respondents learned counsel, no reply to these writ petitions has ever been filed, so this Court has no option except to decide them on the basis of documents placed on record. A careful perusal of the scheme under decree dated 27.10.1986 (Ann.1) makes it crystal clear that the scheme only provides for appointment of the Management Committee by election from among the Khadims but it did not contemplate as to who can be declared as Khadims. The question as to who is Khadim is a question of facts and the claim of the respondent Nos.2 to 33 (WP No.360/99) has through out been denied by the petitioners and even one of the petitioners (WP No.896/99) have already raised objections before the Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer but the CJM on the basis of some of the affidavits included names of the respondent Nos.2 to 33 in the voters list under the impugned order (Ann.7 WP No.3607/99). (10). Moreover, it is the case of the petitioners that only the persons who are serving the Dargah so as to look after its cleanliness, maintenance, security and looking after convenience of Jairins (pilgrims who come for worship and participation in the `Urs) in a particular period Rajjab 15 to Rajjab 18, are called Khadims; that a particular portion in the Dargah situated at the centre and enclosure of Tomb, itself is particularly kept under the maintenance and security of Khadims who are only Khadims whose prime duty is to wash the Tomb, to light candles with perfume sprays, which cannot be allowed to perform by anyone else and one who has left Ajmer or migrated by keeping away from pious duties of service to the Dargah and pilgrims is and cannot be declared as Khadim, inasmuch as persons who are not Khadims of this particular Tomb specified area of the Dargah are not entitled to any benefit out of the gifts to the Dargah. (11). (11). Thus, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that merely because some of the Mohammedans in their affidavit deposed that the applicants are Khadims, they cannot be declared as Khadims by inclusion of their names in the voters list of the election dated 21.2.99, for which the CJM has no jurisdiction to do so under the impugned order, and that apart the application was moved only by four of persons having not been duly signed by respondent Nos.2 to 33 or supported by cogent and admissible evidence to prove their pedigree or legal heirs of Kherullah or Khubullah for declaring them as Khadims so as to include their names in the voters list, inasmuch as their earlier request made in the year 1978 has been turned down resulting in dismissal of their suit though culminating into pendency of the appeal, the impugned order is a colourable exercise of jurisdiction. (12). It is also case of the petitioners that Kherullah & Khubullah were Khadims more than 150 years ago but the respondents (applicants) have failed to show as to when they shifted to Malva and how they are their ancestors & lineage, inasmuch as they failed to specify as to who are legal heirs of Kherullah and Khubullah. Further it is the case of the petitioners that the CJM had no authority or jurisdiction to decide the questions as to who are the Khadims and whether respondents are entitled to be included in the voters list, inasmuch as the CJM has no jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondents for declaring them as Khadims. It is further case of the petitioners that only remedy for the respondent Nos. 2 to 33 was to file suit for declaration which was filed in the year 1978 but dismissed as abated against which since appeal is pending so inclusion of their names under the impugned order and election on the basis of such voters list is also illegal without authority of law. (13). According to the petitioners under the scheme framed by the degree dated 27.10.1896 (Ann.1) the CJM got only supervisory power to supervise Managing Committee and the election thereof so also to decide objection as to the validity of election but summary trial of the application in question was not permissible either under relevant law or under the decree dated 27.10.1896 (ann.1) or its scheme itself. (14). (14). Having given thoughtful and earnest considerations to all the contentions raised in these petitions, I am of the considered opinion that all of them requires adjudication of the disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon or decided especially in the absence of pleadings of the parties and evidence led in support thereof, muchless by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by way of appreciation or reappreciation of evidence or pleadings of the parties with a view to adjudge validity of the impugned order with regard to inclusion of names of respondent Nos.2 to 33 in the voters list of election dated 21.2.99. (15). Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that in the year 1978, once upon the rejection by the CJM as to the inclusion of names in the voters list or declaring some of the applicants as Khadims, Gulam Hussain, Syed Haider Ali, Syed Ahmed Ali, Syed Barkat, Syed Kamruddin, Syed Nasir Ali and Syed Shamsher Ali instituted a suit No.356/78 for declaring them as Khadims of the Dargah and the suit was dismissed as having abated against all defendants while deciding defendant Nos. 16 & 17s application under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC by an order dated 23.9.93, against which an appeal has still been pending before the lower appellate Court (ADJ Ajmer). In this view of the matter, in my considered view, the entire matter deserves to be remanded to the Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer for deciding all the disputed questions of facts having been raised in these writ petitions by both the petitioners, Panchayat Khuddan, Syed Riaz Ahmed and Syed Jalal Hussain so also the following questions amongst others raised in the appeal pending before him:- (1) Whether the CJM had jurisdiction or authority under the Scheme by decree dated 27.10.1896 in civil suit No.213/1894 (Nazar Ali vs. Gulzar Ali) either to entertain or decide application dated 6.1.99 duly signed by only four persons (Syed Shabir Ali, Syed Abid Hussain, Syed Ashkar Ali & Syed Abbas Ali) for declaring respondent Nos. 2 to 33 (named in application, itself, not signed by them)as Khadims for being included in the voters list under the garb of supervisory power under the scheme (supra) for adjudging validity of the election dated 22.1.99? 2 to 33 (named in application, itself, not signed by them)as Khadims for being included in the voters list under the garb of supervisory power under the scheme (supra) for adjudging validity of the election dated 22.1.99? (2) Whether earlier also these respondent Nos.2 to 33 (named in application dated 6.1.99) or any of them had applied for inclusion of their name in the voters list in the year 1978 and if so, its rejection will effect or put bar to move for further application on the principle of res judicata? (3) Whether dismissal of suit No.356/78 against earlier rejection in the year 1978 as to the inclusion of their names in the voters list and pendency of appeal does put bar under law as against further application? (4) Whether only remedy for the respondents (named in the application dt.6.1.99) is to institute a civil suit for declaring them as Khadims so as to include their names in the voters list of any of the elections of the Management Committee of the Dargah? (5) Whether in view of specific clause (1) of the scheme framed under the decree dated 27.10.1896 (supra) (which lays down that objections to the validity of any election shall be disposed of by the Court whose order in this behalf shall be final), the CJM has acted under the impugned order as a Court of law and if so then his order is final or not? (16). However, it is made clear that since the Managing Committee of the Dargah was constituted by a decree passed in a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, this court is reluctant under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India to usurp the jurisdiction of Civil Court in exercise of powers under the CPC to adjudge validity of any order/judgment of the Civil Court or Appellate Court in future also in the matter of functioning of Managing Committee or its election etc. being held under the decree dated 27.10.1896 (Ann.1). (17). being held under the decree dated 27.10.1896 (Ann.1). (17). Since the matter is remanded to the Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer while leaving open the challenge as to the validity of the impugned order dated 10.2.99, the result of the election dated 21.2.99 is not disturbed but it should not be implemented till final decision of matter by the Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer who is directed to decide civil appeal No.89/99 pending before him arising out of order dated 23.9.93 of the Munsif (East), Ajmer in Civil Suit No.356/78, so also aforesaid questions including the validity of the impugned order dated 10.2.99 after considering the record of the CJM deciding the application dated 6.1.99 only in respect of the voters list of the election dated 21.2.99 for inclusion of respondent Nos.2 to 33 allegedly in the light of the decree dated 27.10.1896 (supra), and considering the objections of the present petitioners against the said inclusion, after affording opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. All this exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. However, it is made clear that since the application dated 6.1.99 was signed by four applicants, the ADJ No.1, Ajmer shall issue notice to them only and not to all of 32 persons named in the applications because their cause for declaring them as Khadims has been represented by these four persons/applicants but in case all or any one of them voluntarily appears without notice in person or through their pleader, proper opportunity of hearing should also be given to them for the cause of inclusion of their names in the voters list only. (18). With the remand of the matter in the light of the observations made in the preceding para, these two writ petitions shall stand finally disposed of. The Dy. Registrar (Judl.) of this court is directed to send certified copy of this order, original result of the election dated 21.2.99 by keeping its certified copy in these petitions also, to the ADJ No.1, Ajmer City for disposal of the matter as indicated above within four months. The Dy. Registrar (Judl.) of this court is directed to send certified copy of this order, original result of the election dated 21.2.99 by keeping its certified copy in these petitions also, to the ADJ No.1, Ajmer City for disposal of the matter as indicated above within four months. Petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP Nos.896/99 so also Panchayat (petitioner) and respondent Nos.2 to 33 in WP No.3607/99 beside respondent Managing Committee are represented by their learned counsel, all these parties are directed to appear before the ADJ No.1, Ajmer on 31.1.2002 and plead for their respective cause in the matter remanded to the Subordinate Court. No order as to costs.