JUDGMENT : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and propriety of the order dated 9.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Janjgir in Civil Suit No.12A/95 thereby dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff/ appellant is a society registered under the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973 having its registration No.743. The plaintiff/ appellant filed a civil suit for declaration that the constitution of Managing Committee of respondent No.1-Math is illegal and therefore they be restrained from managing the affairs of respondent No.1-Math, performing worship (pujapath) etc. in the temples of the trust and they be further restrained from raising construction of Dharamsala in Bilaspur. It has also been prayed that till the constitution of new body/committee, a temporary Manager or Management Committee be appointed/constituted to perform day-to-day activities of the trust. A declaration has also been sought against respondent No.6 that he is not eligible to hold post of Managing Trustee in the said Math. 3. In plaint it was pleaded that the object of the society is to eradicate evils from the Hindu community, to maintain purity in religious work, to remove the irregularities & illegalities committed by the trustees and managing trustees of any Math, temple or trust. It has further been pleaded that the suit has been filed by the President of the society who has been authorized to do so. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint that respondent No.1-Shivrinarayan Math is a public trust registered under the provisions of Sections 4 & 5 of the Public Trust Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act, 1951') and respondent No.6 is the Managing Trustee of the said Math. Registration of the said trust was made by virtue of order dated 26.3.1960 passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 1951. Registration of the said trust was made by virtue of order dated 26.3.1960 passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 1951. Cause of action for filing the suit has arisen on 22.7.1993 when, as per pleadings, the plaintiff came to know about the irregularities in maintaining the accounts of respondent No.1 Math (public trust) and therefore the suit has been filed for the following relief’s:- ^^¼v½- ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd mijksDr fo"k; okŒØŒ 17@60 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 16@10@60] 12@9@61] 28@12@61] 4@7@64] 4@4@86 ,o 1@10@86 voS/k gS rFkk mDr vkns'k fnukad 1@10@86 ds vuqlkj fufeZr ,oa xfBr mDr eB dh izca/kd desVh dk fuekZ.k ,oa xBu voS/k rFkk Jh oS".ko nkl th mDr eB ds oS/k izca/kd U;klh ugha gSA ¼c½ f'kojhukjk;.k eB dh mijksDr la?k% izca/kd desVh ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikfjr dh tkos fd og desaVh mDr eB dk fdlh Hkh izdkj dk izca/k u djs rFkk mDr eB esa fLFkr fofHkUu eafnjksa esa LFkkfir nsoh nsorkvksa dh iwtk] vkpkZ] jkxHkksx] Hktu dhrZu dk lapkyu u djsA ¼Lk½ bl izdj.k esa vfare fu.kZ; gksrs ,d mDr eB ds leLr izaca/k gsrq ,d mi;qDRk izca/kd ;k izca/kd desVh dk fuekZ.k ,oa xBu fd;k fd mDr eB dk gj izdkj dk izca/k djs rFkk mDr eB esa fLFkr fofHkUu eafnjksa esa LFkkfir nsoh nsorkvksa dh iwtk vkpkZ jkxHkksx gj izdkj dh lsok] Hktu] dhrZu vkfn dk lapkyu djsa vkSj ;g izca/kd desVh bl U;k;ky; dks gj 6 ekg esa U;kl ds leLr vk; O;; dk fglkc izLrqr djs vkSj U;kl ds dk;Z ds laca/k esa izfrosnu izLrqr djs rFkk bl laca/k esa ys[kk ijh{k.k fjiksVZ izLrqr djsA ¼n½ ;g fd mDr eB dh la?k izca/kd desVh ds }kjk fcykliqj esa fuekZ.kk/khu 20 yk[k :i;s dh ykxr ls fuekZ.k dh tk jgh /keZ'kkyk dk;Z jksdk tkos tc rd bl izdj.k esa vfare fu.kZ; ugha gksrk ;k mDr fuekZ.k dk;Z] mijksDr dafM+dk ¼l½ esa n'kkZ;s izca/kd ;k izca/kd desVh ds }kjk djk;k tkos tks bl U;k;ky; dks mDr fuekZ.k dk;Z dk fglkc gj rhu ekg esa izLrqr djsA ¼b½ ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd Jh oS".ko nkl th f'kojhukjk;.k eB ds fdlh Hkh in ij fu;qDr gksus ds ik= ugha gS dkj.k mudk fgr eB ds fgrksa ds fo:) jgk gS vkSj mUgksaus U;kl dh dkQh vapy laifŸk dks voS/k :i ls ckotwn mDr O;kŒokŒdŒ 17@60 esa ikfjr fu"ks/kkKk ds gLrkarj.k fd;k gS vkSj eŒizŒ lkoZtfud U;kl ds fofHkUu izko/kkuksa dk [kqYye&[kqyk mYy?kau dbZ o"kksZ rd djus pys vk;s ftlls U;kl dks dkQh uqdlku gqvk gS rFkk mPp U;k;ky; ds mijksDr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj eB dh xfjek ,oa ifo=rk dks ns[krs gq, Bhd ugh gSA ¼bZ½ bl okn dk [kpZ okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼m½ vU; vkKkfIr tks ;g U;k;ky; okfnuh dks ikus ;ksX; le>s fnykbZ tkosA^^ 4. After service of notice, some of the defendants in litigation have appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. It has been mentioned in the application that any action taken by the trustees with respect to managing the trust properties, the supervisory and commanding jurisdiction is with the Registrar, Public Trust. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The Registrar, Public Trust, has already made reference under the provisions of Sections 26 & 27 of the Act, 1951 to the Court of District Judge, which is pending consideration. The suit is not maintainable in the law. 5. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application specifically mentioning that the order dated 1.10.1986 passed by the District Judge, Raipur under the provisions of the Act, 1951 is challenged on the ground that learned District Judge has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff has also challenged the reference order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, and also the order passed by the District Judge, Raipur framing the guidelines for maintaining the trust. 6. Learned Court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings of the respective parties and also the objection raised by the defendants/respondents in their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has held that the civil suit in its present form is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Act, 1951 and accordingly dismissed the same under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. 7. Shri Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that in the civil suit appellant has specifically challenged the order dated 1.10.1986 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, which is in the nature of declaration, and also challenged the reference proceedings instituted before the Court of District Judge, Raipur. In this situation, the suit as filed before the Court below was very much maintainable. He further argued that the order dated 1.10.1986 was challenged on the ground of jurisdiction of the District Judge, Raipur for entertaining the reference as the Head Office of the trust is situated at Shivrinarayan, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Bilaspur. In this situation, the suit as filed before the Court below was very much maintainable. He further argued that the order dated 1.10.1986 was challenged on the ground of jurisdiction of the District Judge, Raipur for entertaining the reference as the Head Office of the trust is situated at Shivrinarayan, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Bilaspur. He further submits that the suit is maintainable for the reason that the plaintiff/ appellant society was not a party to the earlier litigation which started in the year 1960 and concluded on 1.10.1986, therefore, the bar provided under the Act, 1951 in challenging the order dated 1.10.1986 before the appropriate forum will not come in the way or affect the plaintiff's right to file the suit as filed by the plaintiff. 8. Per contra, Shri Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the plaintiff is aggrieved with the working procedure adopted by the Managing Trustees in maintaining the trust properties; irregularities in the accounts of trust and therefore appropriate remedy would be to approach the Registrar, Public Trust under the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 1951. He further argued that the plaintiff has not challenged the orders, which were sought to be declared illegal, in an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the Act, 1951 because all the orders mentioned in the relief clause i.e. 16.10.1960, 12.9.1961, 28.12.1961, 4.7.1964, 4.4.1986 & 1.10.1986 are the orders arising out of the proceedings initiated under Section 26 (2) of the Act, 1951. He further argued that Section 27 of the Act, 1951 provides for the Courts power to make enquiry on points raised in application. Section 27 (3) provides that any order passed under sub-section (2) with respect to appointment/removal of a trustee, declaration regarding allotment of any portion of the trust property for any particular object of the trust; providing scheme of management of the trust property and issuance of any direction with respect to management of the trust property, shall be deemed to be a decree of such Court and an appeal shall lie there from to the High Court. He further argued that sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act of 1951 specifically bars filing of civil suit with respect to a dispute for which an application can be made under Section 26 of the Act of 1951. He further argued that sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act of 1951 specifically bars filing of civil suit with respect to a dispute for which an application can be made under Section 26 of the Act of 1951. He also submitted that an appeal can be filed by any person aggrieved under sub-section (3) of Section 27 to the HIgh Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below. 10. Perusal of the contents of plaint would show that the cause of action arose when appellant tried to peep into the management of the trust and came to know that there was mismanagement of trust properties and irregularities being committed by the members of the trust. On further going into detail, he came to know that the court of civil jurisdiction of Raipur was not having the jurisdiction to entertain reference made by the Registrar for appointment of trustees and making scheme of management for maintaining trust properties. 11. First thing which emerges from the pleadings made in the plaint is that all the orders sought to be declared illegal by the plaintiff in the civil suit were the orders passed in the proceedings under the Section 26 (2) of the Act of 1951 and Section 27 (3) of the Act of 1951 provides for an appeal to the High Court against such orders. Section 27 (3) of the Act of 1951 reads thus:- "(3) Any order passed by the Court under sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be a decree of such court and an appeal shall lie there from to the High Court." 12. If, for any reason, the plaintiff/appellant is aggrieved by the orders claimed to be declared illegal in the civil suit, then the plaintiff could have very well challenged the same before the High Court as per provisions of Section 27 (3) of the Act of 1951, but the plaintiff has not availed the said remedy. The Act of 1951 is a self-contained Code wherein specific provisions are provided to challenge the orders passed under the Act of 1951 at every stage i.e. from the stage of formation of trust to its proper management. The Act of 1951 is a self-contained Code wherein specific provisions are provided to challenge the orders passed under the Act of 1951 at every stage i.e. from the stage of formation of trust to its proper management. Secondly, if the plaintiff is aggrieved by improper management of the trust and its properties or the irregularities committed by the managing trustees in maintaining accounts of the trust, due to which they have found that the working of managing trustees having been failed to achieve the object of the trust, then the Act of 1951 provides procedure under Section 26 of the Act of 1951. 13. The Act of 1951 is a Code in itself wherein Section 26 provides for filing of an application for mismanagement of trust, irregularities in managing the trust property committed by the working and managing trustees and the said dispute raised before the Registrar, Public Trust, is to be referred to the competent civil Court for adjudication. Section 27 (3) of the Act of 1951 provides for an appeal to the High Court against any order passed by the Court on such dispute referred under Section 26 of the Act of 1951. 14. In the case in hand, orders, which have been challenged and sought to be declared illegal, were the orders passed in the proceedings under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 for which specific provision of appeal is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act of 1951. Other relief’s sought by the plaintiff/appellant are with respect to management of trust properties, quality of trustees to be appointed as Managing Trustee which are subject matter to be considered by the Registrar under the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 1951. 15. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant has no substance, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.