Judgment: A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This revision application under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed at the instance of defendants against the order dated 6-10-2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Multai District Betul whereby an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code filed on behalf of applicants has been dismissed. A suit for declaration and mandatory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 which is pending in the trial Court. The allegation made in the plaint is that mala fidely and against the interest of Gram Panchayat the defendants are carrying on the business affairs of the Gram Panchayat and hence the complaint was also made to Sub Divisional Officer in that regard but of no avail and therefore the present suit has been filed for mandatory injunction. 2. After the defendants-applicants were served, an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code has been filed that the civil suit is barred looking to the provisions contained in section 108 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short "Adhiniyam 1993"). This application has been dismissed by learned trial Court holding that points which are raised in the application are having nexus with the facts and at the threshold it cannot be decided. 3. In this manner this revision application has been filed by the defendants-applicants. The contention of learned counsel for applicants is that looking to the specific bar envisaged under section 108 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 the civil suit is not maintainable and if that is the position the provision of Order VII, Rule 11(d), Civil Procedure Code has been rightly prayed to be invoked by the defendants by filing such application in the trial Court and that Court has committed illegality with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the applicants. 4. Considered the submissions. On bare perusal of the provision of section 108 of Adhiniyam, 1993 and by paying heed to sub-section (3) this Court finds that bar would not apply to the suit instituted under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. Needless to say that the present suit is of permanent and mandatory injunction only, therefore, according to me the said bar is not applicable. Needless to say that the present suit is of permanent and mandatory injunction only, therefore, according to me the said bar is not applicable. Even otherwise in the entire plaint, the pleadings of plaintiff are that arbitrarily with a mala fide intention in order to misappropriate the public money the office bearers of Gram Panchayat are functioning for which he also made certain complaints to the Sub Divisional Officer but nothing has been done so far. According to me, the protection under section 107 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 is given to office bearer only when they are serving bona fidely. Since the allegations are of mala fide and arbitrariness which require investigation, therefore, these pleadings are to be read in the context to section 108(3) of the Adhiniyam of 1993 which permits to file suit for injunction. Thus, according to me learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application on that ground. 5. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by the learned trial Court and I do not find any illegality or perversity in it. It has been then contended by learned counsel for applicants that now term of office bearers of Gram Panchayat is over and the suit has become infructuous. If such an application is filed by the defendants-applicants in the trial Court, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by that Court. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. No costs.