JUDGMENT 1. - The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Merta in Civil Appeal No. 30/2002 LR's of Nand Lal v. LR's of Radha Kishan and Ors. whereby the learned Dist. Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Merta City in Civil Original Suit No. 107/1993 (132/79) (185/83) whereby the suit for injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff was rejected. 2. The appellants are claiming right of worship on their turn in a temple known as Charbhuja Mandir at Merta. The two Courts below have negatived the said right inter alia holding that Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1953 bars jurisdiction of civil Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff Mr. C.P. Soni submitted that since a stipulation has been made in the Trust-deed, which permitted the said rights of turn of worship to be determined finally by the civil Court, the decision of Sub-committee constituted under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act cannot be subjected for determination before the authorities created under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and Section 73 would not bar such a civil suit. He also submitted that adoption-deed conferring them right to have his share of worship was also disputed before the Court below.Section 73 of the Act reads as under: "73. Bar of jurisdiction. - Save as expressly provided in this Act, no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act or in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive." 4. The learned counsel for he appellants relied upon the following judgments: (i) Sahebgouda v. Ogeppa & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 151 (ii) Vinayaka Dev v. Shiva Ram, (2005) 6 SSC 641 (iii) Ranglal v. Laxmi Lal, 2007(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1465 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Narendra Thanvi supported the impugned judgments and has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: (i) Sharad Kumar v. Raghuveer Singh, 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 171 (ii) Bashir Abbas Kudale v. Mahadeo & Ors., AIR 2003 Bombay 224 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Narendra Thanvi supported the impugned judgments and has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: (i) Sharad Kumar v. Raghuveer Singh, 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 171 (ii) Bashir Abbas Kudale v. Mahadeo & Ors., AIR 2003 Bombay 224 6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and it is clear that in view of provisions of Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, which are quoted above, which is special law enacted from dealing with the dispute arising in public trusts, the Courts below cannot be said to have erred in holding that the civil suit is not maintainable. The allied questions about the adoption and righto; defendants to have worship and turn in such worship in the said temple which is undeniably managed by the religious public trust in question known as Shri Charbhuja Nath temple, Merta can be considered by the appropriate authority. 7. Accordingly this Court is satisfied that no substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal. The present second appeal of the plaintiff being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******