JUDGMENT 1. - Both the instant intra court appeals since arises from the self same judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2012 hence with consent of the parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present order. 2. The factual matrix of the matter has a chequred history but the brief facts which are relevant for disposal of the instant intra court appeals are that Thakur Takhat Singh of Mulsisar died issue-less on 05.05.1970 and left a will dated 22.03.1965 & codicil dated 28.04.1969 whereby movable & immovable properties were to be devolved to a charitable trust namely Bhoor Singh Bhag Singh Trust but at the same time it was claimed by the appellant that he has got another will dated 01.05.1970 of the testator on the basis of which he applied before the Ld. District Judge for letter of administration and the trustees of Bhawani Singh Bhag Singh Trust applied for registration of trust on the basis of will dated 22.03.1965 & codicil dated 28.04.1969 before the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department u/S 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1959 ("Act, 1959") and the appellant Bhawani Singh opposed the registration of the trust on the basis of being adopted son of late Takht Singh and the appellant Jeevan Singh opposed registration of trust on the basis that he had a will dated 01.05.1970 and the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department taking note of the material on record & the fact that the matter regarding the will on which the parties are placing their reliance is sub-judice before the Ld. District Judge and its decision will be binding upon the parties, keeping that pending adjudication into consideration dismissed the application vide its order dated 12.12.1973, against which appeal came to be preferred before the Commissioner, Devsthan Department but that came to be dismissed on the ground that the dispute was not falling within the definition of order passed u/S 19 of the Act,1959 vide order dated 01.11.1974 and that was the subject matter of challenge by filing writ petition no.339/1974 and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide its order dated 08.08.1978 partly accepted the writ petition and the orders dated 12.12.1973 & 01.11.1974 were set aside but the order of the learned Single Judge was further challenged in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.30/1979 and the Division Bench of this 1 Court while upholding the operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge further observed that the observations made by the learned Single Judge will not have any adverse effect upon disposal of the testamentary proceedings pending before the Ld. District Judge and accordingly dismissed 5 the special appeal with the observations made vide order dated 19.07.1989. 3. District Judge and accordingly dismissed 5 the special appeal with the observations made vide order dated 19.07.1989. 3. The Assistant Commissioner thereafter took up the matter for registration & finally dropped the proceedings vide its order dated 16.03.1982 and that again came to be challenged before the Commissioner, Devsthan who directed the Assistant Commissioner to initiate proceedings for registration n vide its order dated 19.08.1983, in compliance thereof and after the matter was remitted the learned Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan rejected proceedings for the registration/trust vide its order dated 12.12.1985 and it will be appropriate to quote extract thereof which reads as under " vr% i=koyh ds v/;;u ls vkSj mDr fcUnqvksa dh tkap ls Li"V gS fd izU;kl Hkwjflag ck|flag ekStwnk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa LFkkfir ugha gS u dk;kZy; gS u izU;kl dh dksbZ lEink izU;kfl;ksa ds i{k dh uke dks muds i{k gS vkSj muls dksbZ vk; O;; ugha gSA i{kdkjksa ds e/; O;ogkj U;k;ky; esa muds gd vkSj LokfeRo rFkk olh;r o dksfMlhy esa nh xbZ lEink ds ckjs esa eqndesa py jg gS vkSj O;oLFkk U;k;ky; ds i{kdkjksa ds gd vf/kdkj ds fu.kZ;kRed fcUnq fu/kkZfjr gks pqds gS ftldh izfr bl i=koyh esa 'kkfey gSa vr% mDr nLrkostkr olh;rukesa vkSj dksfMlhy ds vk/kkj ij iath;u dk dk;Zokgh djuk mfpr ugha le>rs gSaA ijekRek lgk; vkSj j?kqohjflag izU;kfl;ksa us iath;u ds izkFkZuk i= izi= la[;k 6 fnukad 27-7-70 muds cgqer ds vk/kkj ij okfil ysus dh izkFkZuk dk gS vr% mUgsa okil fn;k tkosa D;ksafd olh;rukes vkSj dksfMlhy fooknxzLr ds vk/kkj ij mUgsa ,slk djus dk vf/kdkj gSA ,slh n'kk esa Qrsgflag dk iath;u dk izkFkZuk i= tks izi= la[;k 6 esa fu;ekuqlkj ugha gSA Lor gh izHkkoghu gks tkrk gS mls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA Qrsflag dks izU;kfl;ksa ds cgqer ds vk/kkj ij gh iath;u dh dk;Zokgh djokuk pkfg;sA vr% mDr of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij Hkwjflag ck?kflag V~LV dk iath;u dk;Zokgh lekIr dh tkrh gS vkSj Qrsflag dk iath;u dk izkFkZuki= fnukad 31-12-80 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA " 4. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.12.1985 came to be challenged before the learned Commissioner, Devsthan in appeal and that also came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.06.1997 and it will be appropriate to quote extract thereof which reads as under:- " mDr fLFkfr ls ;g vkHkkflr gksrk gS dh tc ,d laifRr dks ,d O;fDr xksn ds vk/kkj ij LoRo dh crk jgk gS vkSj nwljk O;fDr olh;r ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a dh crk jgk gS vkSj rhljk O;fDr mls lkoZtfud izU;kl dh crk jgk gS vkSj ftlesa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk /kekZFkZ ,oa iq.;kFkZ d`R; vHkh rd ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj ugha o /kekZFkZ o iw.;kFkZ d`R;ksa ds fy;s mi;ksx esa dh tk jgh gS rks bldk dsoy ek= fodYi ;gh gS fd tc rd flfoy U;k;ky; thouflag ,oa Hkokuhflag ds dze'k% olh;r~ ,oa xksn ds vk/kkj ij LoRo dks fu/kkZfjr ugha djrh rc rd bl vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr iath;u dh dk;Zokgh djuk fujFkZd gksxkA thouflag vkSj Hkokuhflag ds ckn fujLr gksus dh fLFkfr esa bl lEifRr dk yksd izU;kl cuk;k tk ldrk gS vkSj mldh /kekZFkZ vkSj iq.;kFkZ d`R;ksa dh ;kstuk cukbZ tk ldrh gS D;ksafd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 18 ( 2 ) esa U;kl dh lEifRr ?kksf"kr gksus ij gh U;kl ds iath;u dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA " mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl LVst ij lgk;d vk;qDr ds vk{ksfir vkns'k esa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ vk/kkj izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykaV }kjk izLrqr fofu'p; Hkh mDr ifjizs{; esa gLrxr izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd izLrqr izdj.k esa izU;kl dh lEifRr ij lsok iwtk dh tkrh gS vr% mDr funsZ'kksa dks lkFk ;g i{kdkj viuk viuk [kpkZ ogu djsaA " 5. Both the orders dated 12.12.1985 & 19.06.1997 came to be challenged at 1 the instance of the trust & Shri Narayan Sharma & Raj Narayan Singh jointly by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2889/1998 and that came to be disposed by the learned Single Judge under order impugned dated 04.12.2012 and it can be noticed from the records that in the order impugned the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding on merits in respect to the rival contentions advanced by the parties and was of the view that the rights of the respective parties will be governed by the decision/outcome of the civil dispute pending before the Ld. trial Judge on the question of validity & genuineness of the three wills/codicil referred to claiming their rights over the disputed properties to that of trust and the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner & the Commissioner dated 12.12.1985 & 19.06.1997 would not create a bar for the writ petitioner in again approaching to the Assistant Commissioner Devsthan Department. It has come on record that Jeevan Singh applied for letter of administration in the District Court Jaipur on 01.03.1973 in regard to the properties left by late Takhat Singh based on his alleged will dated 01.05.1970 u/s 295 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 and on contest by the trust & Bhawani Singh, the learned District Judge converted it into a regular civil suit no. 134/1974 (46/1973) (Jeevan Singh v. Umraomal & Bhawani Singh) , at the same time appellant Bhawani Singh objected the registration of Bhoor Singh Bagh Singh Public Charitable Trust and filed a civil suit no. 75/1973 (66/1973) (Bhawani Singh v. Shivramni & others) on 04.05.1973 alleging himself to be adopted son of late Takhat Singh and claiming all the properties left by late Takhat Singh & questioning the validity of will dated 22.03.1965 & codicil 28.04.1969 executed in favour of Bhoor Singh Bagh Singh Public Charitable Trust and also the alleged will dated 01.05.1970 in favour of Jeevan Singh and in civil suit no.75/1973 filed by Takhur Bhawani Singh, in all 13 issues were framed on 02.12.1975 vide order dated 02.12.1975 and both the civil suits of which reference has been made; one filed by Jeevan Singh for letter of administration before the District Judge who lateron converted it into a regular civil suit no.134/1974 (46/1973) and the civil suit no.75/1973 (66/1973) filed at the instance of the appellant Bhawani Singh (Bhawani Singh v. Shivramni Singh & others) both are pending adjudication before the learned civil court and the present appellants & the contesting respondents are party to the pending proceedings before the learned civil court. 6. 6. Both the counsel jointly submits that the learned Single Judge indisputably has not recorded any finding and left it open for the parties to address in the pending proceedings before the civil court and the respective party will be in a position to take its further action in accordance with law and liberty was granted to the writ petitioner of again approaching to the Assistant Commissioner Devsthan obviously keeping in view the outcome/decision of the civil court but jointly submits that since the learned Single Judge has observed regarding the validity or genuineness of three wills referred to in the pending civil court that is not legally sustainable for the reason that as regards the last will as alleged dated 01.05.1970 in favour of Jeevan Singh that came to be challenged by the writ petitioner by filing a regular civil suit for possession, declaration & permanent injunction and that came to be dismissed and the regular first appeal in this Court also finally dismissed as such the will dated 01.05.1970 is not open to question and the observation made regarding validity or genuineness of three wills referred to by the learned Single Judge under order impugned requires re-consideration by this Court. 7. Counsel for respondent submits that the issues were framed in the pending civil suit no.75/1973 filed at the instance of Thakur Bhawani Singh and it is always open for the parties to address & put their defence and the learned Single Judge has only referred to the three wills which indisputably has been referred to in the civil suit as well and rights of the either parties in no manner are going to be improved or adversely affected by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in passing of order impugned and the present special appeals have been filed only to delay the outcome of the civil suit pending before the civil court for the last 40 years and at least all must be interested in getting the dispute finally resolved. 8. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record and find substance in the contention raised by the respondent that the learned Single Judge in whole of its judgment impugned herein dated 04.12.2012 has referred to the chronological facts apprised by the parties & revealed from the order initially passed by the Assistant Commissioner Devsthan dated 12.12.1985 & of Commissioner Devsthan in appeal dated 19.06.1997 and keeping rights of the parties open for consideration in the pending civil suit consciously has not recorded any finding since it may adversely affect rights of the parties and as regards the pending civil suit is concerned the parties to the proceedings have a right to take their own defence in respect of the wills which has been referred to but in our considered view in absence of any finding being recorded which may adversely affect rights of the parties we do not find any justification to entertain present intra court appeals filed at the instance of the appellants who are plaintiff in the respective civil suits and pending before the learned civil court and its final decision will certainly be binding upon the parties subject to their right of appeal envisaged to them under the law. 9. The submission made by counsel for appellant that the facts which has been referred to regarding validity or genuineness of the three wills is concerned is without substance for the reason that what has been raised in the pending civil suit the parties have a right to take their own defence and the submission made regarding the civil suit preferred by the trust and the regular first appeal preferred in this Court came to be dismissed, it is open for the parties to take their own defence but that could not be a reason for calling upon this Court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge more so when the learned Single Judge has refrained from recording any finding which could in any manner adversely affect the rights of the parties and rightly so since their rights are to be determined after the matter being adjudicated in the pending civil suit. 10. We do not find any justification in either of the appeals and both the appeals are devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******