JUDGMENT : JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA, J. Instant petition is directed against the order dt. 27.05.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, 13, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 384/2012 whereby the application filed u/Ord. 7 R. 11 CPC by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that there is a Temple of Hanuman Ji known as Hanuti Hanuman Ji in village Ramsinghpura Teshil Sanganer, District Jaipur, which is said to be 150 years old and which was lying in a dilapidated condition and was not properly managed due to lack of funds and proper management and administration. The plaintiff-respondent namely; (Shri Hanuti Hanuman Ji Sevak Samiti Bavarui Koshlya Das Village Ramsinghpura), which is said to be a registered society under the Societies Registration Act on 07.06.1999 filed a Civil Suit before the Trial Court u/Ord. 7 R. 1 wherein, it was claimed that the society runs the Temple in just and proper manner and over the years has developed the Temple and surrounding areas in a befitting manner and there are 21 members of repute in the society. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that so many development works have already been completed and the society is continuing with huge constructions for the benefit and convenience of religious people having faith. It has claimed in the Civil Suit that some of the members to the detriment of the Temple as well as society are hampering the process and are encroaching upon the property owned by the plaintiff-respondent and in particular temple and wish to gradually take into possession the property of the Temple as well as the society and therefore, the Civil suit was filed with a prayer to protect the property of the Trust, restraining the defendant-petitioner not to encroach upon the property in illegal manner and not to interrupt in the development work being carried out by the society. 3. An application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 came to be filed by the defendant-petitioner inter-alia claiming that the suit is barred as the defendant-petitioner is registered in the year 2011 under the Devsthan Act, which is also for the benefit of the religious people coming for Darshan/Seva Puja and is doing work, as earlier, it was not managed well. 3. An application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 came to be filed by the defendant-petitioner inter-alia claiming that the suit is barred as the defendant-petitioner is registered in the year 2011 under the Devsthan Act, which is also for the benefit of the religious people coming for Darshan/Seva Puja and is doing work, as earlier, it was not managed well. It was also contended that the Civil Suit is barred u/Sec. 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (in short the Act of 1959) and the jurisdiction lies with the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan and all the matters relating to Trust or Temple or otherwise, is required to be considered under the Act of 1959 and the Civil Suit being barred, the application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 was required to be accepted. However, the Trial Court vide impugned order has rejected the said application by holding that the averments made in the plaint, are required to be seen and looked into and this can only be decided after leading the evidence and the Trial Court has held that the respondent has not made a prayer relating to the running of the Temple or Seve Puja and has only claimed about possessing the property and encroachment and which can be decided only by the Civil Court and accordingly, the application has been rejected. 4. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a registered Trust and after giving a public notice, it was got registered under the Act by a person, who came voluntarily to take care of the mismanagement or not proper maintenance of the Temple, which is of repute. Counsel contended that sec. 73 of the Act of 1959 clearly states that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with and when there is a specific bar, the Civil Court ought not to have rejected the said application which was just and proper and ought to have been accepted the same and dismissed the suit at the threshold. Counsel also contended that all enquiries or complaint, if any, by anyone including the defendant-petitioner were required to be referred and considered by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan and not by the Civil Court and prays that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed and the suit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Counsel also contended that all enquiries or complaint, if any, by anyone including the defendant-petitioner were required to be referred and considered by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan and not by the Civil Court and prays that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed and the suit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that admittedly, the respondent Samiti was established way back in the year 1999 and is doing laudable good work with regard to development of the Temple and surrounding areas for the benefit of the people coming for Darshan/Seva Puja in the Temple. Counsel contended that year to year audits have been undertaken and proper transparency is being maintained and all amount is credited to the Bank Accounts and rather the plaintiff-respondent has with efforts of people and dedicated Trustees has made huge development works which are duly disclosed even in the suit filed. He also contended that the matter does not relate to religious sentiments or Seva Puja but to protect property of the Trust and encroachment being made by the defendant-petitioner, which can be considered only by a Civil Court and thus, the application was rightly rejected. He also contended that the suit is at an advance stage now and written statements have been filed and to his knowledge, the issues have also been framed as the application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 was disposed of in May, 2013 and prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. In my view, the application has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court and no interference is necessary. The facts have already been brought on record and admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent was registered as a Samiti on 07.06.1999 and the petitioner came into existence in the year 2011. 8. On perusal of the prayer made in the suit, it is specifically referring to protect the property or/and encroachment by the defendant-petitioner and not to interfere in the development work being carried out by the plaintiff-respondent, which in my view, fall within the domain of the Civil Court and the issue can only be decided after leading the evidence at the time of the disposal of the application filed u/Ord. 7 R. 11. 7 R. 11. Only averments made in the plaint are required to be seen and nothing more and which in my view, has rightly been considered and decided by the Trial Court in the order impugned. 9. However, the issue as has been raised by the petitioner can also be framed by the Trial Court in addition to the other issues, if any, framed and the grievance raised by the defendant-petitioner in the application filed u/Ord. 7 R. 11, the same can also be decided at the time when the suit is finally disposed of. 10. With these directions/observations, the present revision petition is dismissed with a direction that the Trial Court will decided the suit itself expeditiously and within a period of one year from today. Revision petition dismissed.