Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. We are in this case primarily concerned with the scope and ambit of Section 62(1)(ii) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 which says that the civil court can modify or cancel an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 57, section 58 or section 60 read with subsection (1)(a), (2), or (4)(a) of section 19 but it shall have no power to stay the Commissioner’s order pending disposal of the suit. 2. Petitioner is the senior most member of the Madathinkeezhil Tharavadu and is the hereditary trustee of Shri Bhayanamkavu Bhagawathy Temple which is a private temple belongs to that family. Being the senior most member of the family and hereditary trustee he manages the affairs of the temple. While so, 5th respondent, one of the members of the family who is in enimical terms with the family of the petitioner due to certain civil litigations inter se filed OA.No.20 of 2003 under section 57(a) of the HR & CE Act seeking a declaration to the effect that the temple managed by the petitioner is a public temple coming under the purview of the HR & CE Act and also for appointment of an Administrator for the management of the temple. Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, Kozhikode as per order dated 4-10-2006 declared that the temple is a public temple and rejected the prayer for appointment of an Administrator. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner as A.P.No.24/06 under section 61 of the Act and the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner vide its order dated 6-7-2007. 3. Deputy Commissioner then initiated suo moto proceedings under section 58 of the HR & CE Act as OA.No.28/06 for framing a scheme for management of the temple. Aggrieved by the said order the then trustee filed WP(C).No.27355 of 2006 before this court and this court granted stay of the appointment of the fit person and the writ petition was finally disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider the objections raised by the petitioners therein and pass appropriate orders. Later the Commissioner passed an order on 30-8-2007 by which it was decided to frame a scheme for administration of the temple and the order of appointment of the fit person was cancelled. The order was passed on 30-8-2007 in IA.No.38 of 2007. Later the Commissioner passed an order on 30-8-2007 by which it was decided to frame a scheme for administration of the temple and the order of appointment of the fit person was cancelled. The order was passed on 30-8-2007 in IA.No.38 of 2007. Later the second respondent issued Ext.P5 order calling for objections if any against the finalization of the scheme. Aggrieved by those orders petitioner has filed the present writ petition. We heard Sri. K. Mohanakannan and also Sri. Mohan C. Menon appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Govt. Pleader Sri. K. Sandesh Raj. 4. We are in this case primarily concerned with the question whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to grant stay of the order passed by the Commissioner in view of Section 62(1) (ii) of the Act. Section 62 of the Act deals with suits and appeals. Said provision in its entirety is extracted hereunder: “62. Suits and appeals: (1) Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner- (i) under section 61, sub section (1) or sub-section (2), and relating to any of the matters specified in section 57, section 58 or section 60; or (ii) under section 57, section 58 or section 60 read with sub-section (1) (a), (2), or (4) (a) of section 19 may, within ninety days from the date of the receipt of such order by him, institute a suit in the Court against such order; and the Court may modify or cancel such order, but it shall have no power to stay the Commissioner’s order pending the disposal of the suit. (2) Any party aggrieved by a decree of the Court under sub-section (1) may, within ninety days from the date of the decree, appeal to the High Court. (3) (a) Any scheme for the administration of a religious institution settled or modified by the Court in a suit under sub-section (1) or on an appeal under sub-section (2) or any scheme deemed under section 103, clause (d), to have been settled or modified by the Court may, at any time, be modified or cancelled by the Court on an application made to it by the Commissioner, the trustee or any person having interest. (b) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Court under clause (a) may, within ninety days from the date of the order, appeal to the High Court. (b) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Court under clause (a) may, within ninety days from the date of the order, appeal to the High Court. Word “Commissioner” has been defined under section 6(5) of the Act to mean the commissioner appointed under section 8. Word “Deputy Commissioner” has been defined under section 6(7) of the Act to mean the Deputy Commissioner appointed under section 8. Section 8 says that the State Government shall appoint the Commissioner and such number of Deputy and Assistant Commissioners as they think fit. Section 57 of the Act confers power on the Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters. Section 57(a) confers power to inquire into and decide whether an institution is a religious institution or not. Section 58 confers power on the Deputy Commissioner to frame scheme. Section 60 confers power on the Deputy Commissioner on being satisfied that a religious institution has whether before or after the commencement of the Act ceased to exist, then to follow enquiry to ascertain its properties, funds etc. section 62 confers right of appeal to the Commissioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under sections 57 to 60. Section 61(1) says that against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner an appeal shall lie to the Commissioner. Section 62 says that any party aggrieved by an order passed by the commissioner under section 61, subsection (1) or sub-section (2) and relating to any of the matter specified in section 57, section 58 or section 60 can institute a suit in the civil court against such order and the court may modify or cancel such order, but it shall have not power to stay commissioner’s order pending the disposal of the suit. 5. Question raised in this case is whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to stay Ext.P2 order dated 6-7-07 passed by the commissioner in A.P.24/06. Civil court has no power to stay such orders. Further question is whether the civil court has got power to pass any other orders except stay of the order of the Commissioner. 5. Question raised in this case is whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to stay Ext.P2 order dated 6-7-07 passed by the commissioner in A.P.24/06. Civil court has no power to stay such orders. Further question is whether the civil court has got power to pass any other orders except stay of the order of the Commissioner. Same issue came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Muthusami Gurukkal v. Ayyasami Thevan, (1958 MLJ 256) and the Bench of the Madras High Court has taken the view that the ban imposed by section 62(1) of the Madras High Religious and Charitable Endowments Act can be applied only to the extent warranted by the language of that statutory provision. The rest of the jurisdiction of the civil court, e.g., those regulated by rules 1 and 2 or Order 39 Civil Procedure Code remain intact. 6. We have gone through the order passed by the commissioner and the consequential orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Since the matter is seized before the civil court we need not examine the various contentions raised against the impugned orders. All the same, in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner shall be kept in abeyance till civil court passes final orders in the matter. Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner, but for this impugned order the temple is considered to be a private temple and the hereditary trustee is managing the affairs of the temple. Pending suit if the family divested of that power it will adversely affect the interest of the family, its members and the properties of the temple. Under such circumstance we are inclined to allow the writ petition and staying the declaration that the temple in question is public temple. We make it clear that our findings are only tentative and will not affect the issues raised in the civil suit.