ORDER : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 3.4.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur. The order was passed on an application of the petitioners for framing of issues in the enquiry under section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (in short "the Act of 1959"). 2. It is submitted that an application by the petitioners has been dismissed in ignorance of section 18 and 67 of the Act of 1959. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the proceedings before the Commissioner, Devasthan yet the application for framing of the issues has been dismissed. In absence of the issues, enquiry would remain in absurdity. 3. As per sections 18 of the Act of 1959, certain issues are required to be looked into while making enquiry under section 23. It cannot be in absence of framing of issues thus impugned order may be set aside with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner to frame issues and then proceed in the enquiry. Reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "AA Haja Moniuddian v. Indian Railways", AIR 1993 SC 361 has been given. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 5. Pending enquiry under section 23 of the Act of 1959, petitioners made an application for framing of issues at the stage when evidence was led and the petitioners were called upon to cross examine the witnesses. The documents were earlier exhibited, however, matter was deferred on the request of the Advocate. The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan found application only to delay the matter and otherwise the issues raised by the parties are going to be determined in the enquiry under section 23. 6. Learned counsel has raised an argument in reference to section 18 and 67 of the Act of 1959 and both the provisions are quoted hereunder for ready reference - "18. 6. Learned counsel has raised an argument in reference to section 18 and 67 of the Act of 1959 and both the provisions are quoted hereunder for ready reference - "18. Inquiry for Registration.- (1) On receipt of an application under Section 17 or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion, the Assistant Commissioner shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining : (i) whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust: (ii) whether any property is the property of such trust; (iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject matter of the trust is situate within his jurisdiction; (iv) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager of such trust; (v) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust; (vi) the origin, nature and objects of such trust; (vii) the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust: and (viii) the correctness or otherwise of any other particulars furnished under sub-section (4) of Section 17. (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) and invite all person having interest in the public trust inquiry to prefer within sixty days objection, if any, in respect of such trust. 67. - Officers holding inquiries to have the power of Civil Court.- In holding inquiries under this Act the Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner shall have the same powers as are vested in civil courts in respect of the following matters under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act of 1908) in trying a suit : (a) proof of facts by affidavits, (b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any persons and examining him on oath. (c) compelling the production of documents, and (d) issuing of commissions." 7. Section 18 stipulates enquiry for registration on certain points given therein. It does not provide for framing of issues given therein. When section 18 mandates scope of the enquiry regarding registration, the competent authority would obviously consider the matter in accordance with provisions of law and, for which, issues are not required to be framed. 8. Section 18 stipulates enquiry for registration on certain points given therein. It does not provide for framing of issues given therein. When section 18 mandates scope of the enquiry regarding registration, the competent authority would obviously consider the matter in accordance with provisions of law and, for which, issues are not required to be framed. 8. If, at all, argument of learned counsel is accepted, framing of issues would be nothing but to reiterate the points given under section 18 of the Act of 1959 for enquiry about registration. When the statue itself provides certain issues separately, it is not required to be framed while holding enquiry under section 23 of the Act of 1959. 9. Section 67 has also been referred, where the authority concerned has been given power of the civil court for certain purposes. It is under sub-clause (a) to (d). It includes summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath. It does not provide framing of issues for an enquiry under section 23 of the Act of 1959. 10. In view of above, limited application of the CPC as per section 67 of the Act cannot be enlarged to direct the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan to frame issues before he proceed further. If at all, the petitioners had any grievance regarding non-framing of the issues, it could have been raised at the earliest and not after production of evidence by the other party. 11. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed.