JUDGMENT : MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J. 1. The present civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court') in Civil Misc. Suit No. 05/2010, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff - Jodhpur Medical Research Centre Public Trust, Jodhpur, through trustee Dr. S.D. Khetani had preferred a suit invoking the provisions of Section 38 and 41 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1959') before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur in pursuance of order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Assistant Commissioner'). The said suit was preferred seeking appointment of other trustees in accordance with the trust deed. The suit was amended on 11.05.2011. In the suit, it was stated that the learned Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 11.12.2009 while holding that the Jodhpur Medical Research Centre Trust is a public trust and Dr. S.D. Khetani is a working trustee, granted opportunity to him to apply to the District Court for directions within a period of one month, therefore, seeking the aforesaid reliefs, the plaintiff preferred the suit. 3. The present petitioners, thereafter, submitted an application before the learned trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. In the application, the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had a remedy of filing appeal within two months under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 against the order dated 11.12.2009. It is submitted that on 19.12.2009 i.e. within eight days from the date of passing the order dated 11.12.2009, the plaintiff preferred the suit before the learned trial Court invoking the provisions of Section 38 and 41 of the Act of 1959, whereas petitioners had two months’ time to file an appeal against the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner and accordingly, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Rajasthan-Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Commissioner'). Vide order dated 09.03.2010, the learned Commissioner quashed and set aside the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner. In the application, it was further averred that pursuant to the order of the learned Commissioner, Jodhpur, the learned Assistant Commissioner by invoking the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1959, has entered the name of the present petitioners in the register and then the same was published. Against the order of entering the name of the present petitioner and publishing the same, the plaintiff had preferred writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4377/2010 before this Court. However, no stay order was granted. The suit was preferred by the plaintiff pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner and the said order had already been quashed and set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 09.03.2010. 4. On 02.03.2012, the learned trial Court while taking note of the fact that the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2009 has been quashed and set aside by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 09.03.2010, rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151, C.P.C. holding that the suit has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 38 and 41 of the Act of 1959 in compliance of the order of learned Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2009. The learned trial Court also observed that none of the circumstances as mentioned under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are present in the suit and, therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was rejected. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. Challenging the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Act of 1959 is a special Act and the provisions of Sections 17-22 are mandatory provisions and have overriding effect. The learned trial Court has committed grave illegality while not paying heed to the aforesaid provisions which are inter-connected. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. Challenging the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Act of 1959 is a special Act and the provisions of Sections 17-22 are mandatory provisions and have overriding effect. The learned trial Court has committed grave illegality while not paying heed to the aforesaid provisions which are inter-connected. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the provisions of Section 38, any person having interest in the public trust may prefer an application before the learned Assistant Commissioner for directions and after making inquiry and giving opportunity of hearing, if the learned Assistant Commissioner thinks necessary, he may direct the working trustee or any other person having interest in the trust to apply to the Court for directions within 30 days from the date of the order of learned Assistant Commissioner. Further, it is submitted that Section 39 provides for filing an application before the learned Commissioner against the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner under Section 38 of the Act of 1959. It is contended that in the present matter, the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2009 on application under Section 17(2) has been challenged by the petitioners within limitation before the learned Commissioner by way of filing appeal under Section 20 and the learned Commissioner vide order dated 09.03.2010 has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner. On 11.05.2011, the plaintiff preferred the amended suit, however, the fact of the matter remains that the basis for filing of the suit is the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2009 and at the time of filing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner was not in existence as the same was quashed and set aside by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 09.03.2010.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the basis of the suit itself i.e. the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner was not in existence, therefore, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit and the same was not maintainable before the learned trial Court, however, the learned trial Court while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has though noted the aforesaid fact but on flimsy grounds rejected the application, therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned trial Court may be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. may be allowed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments: (i) Varda Ram & Anr. vs. Uma Ram & Ors. 2010 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 325 (ii) Leeladhar vs. Bherubagh Jain Tirth & Ors. 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 545 (iii) Seth Chand Ratan vs. Pandit Durga Prasad (D) by LRs. and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 2736 (iv) Parash Ram vs. Ram Singh, (2018) 1 WLN 527 (v) Mahant Ramprakash Das Swami vs. learned Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department, Jaipur, (2022) 4 RLW 2805 (vi) Ashok Sanghvi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2023) 2 DNJ 836 (vii) Om Shri Narayan Ashram Trust vs. Shri Vimal Chand Jain & Ors. (2022) 3 WLC 129 (viii) Jay Kumar Kothari & Ors. vs. Kailash Chand Choudhary & Ors. (2022) 3 WLC 612 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. (2023) 2 DNJ 836 (vii) Om Shri Narayan Ashram Trust vs. Shri Vimal Chand Jain & Ors. (2022) 3 WLC 129 (viii) Jay Kumar Kothari & Ors. vs. Kailash Chand Choudhary & Ors. (2022) 3 WLC 612 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC and the order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, vice, irregularity or perversity. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly held that the petitioners failed to prove that there is existence of any circumstance to reject the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, it is submitted that the present revision petition may kindly be dismissed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments: (i) Keshav Sood vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood & Ors. 2023 (4) RLW 2698 (SC) (ii) Abdul Fazal vs. M/s. S.J. Marble Mines & Ors. 2010 (1) RLW 140 (Raj.) (iii) G. Nagaraj & Anr. vs. B.P. Mruthunjayanna & Ors. 2023 (2) Civil Court Cases 551 (SC) (iv) Ashish Hora & Anr. vs. Chirag Hora & Ors. 2023 (1) Civil Court Cases 365 (P&H) 7. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the cause of action to the plaintiff for filing of the suit is the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner. The said suit was preferred on 19.12.2009 and amended suit was preferred on 11.05.2011. The subject matter of the suit is reproduced as under: 8. It is also not in dispute that the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2009 has been quashed and set aside by the Commissioner vide its order dated 09.03.2010, therefore, the basis and genesis of the suit is not in existence. The subject matter of the suit is reproduced as under: 8. It is also not in dispute that the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2009 has been quashed and set aside by the Commissioner vide its order dated 09.03.2010, therefore, the basis and genesis of the suit is not in existence. Not only this, pursuant to the order of the Commissioner dated 09.03.2010, the learned Assistant Commissioner while invoking the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1959 has already made entries of the trustees in the register and has also published the same on the notice board, which was challenged by the plaintiff by way of filing the writ petition in the year 2010. However, a perusal of the amended suit, which was filed in the year 2011 makes it clear that this subsequent event has not been brought on record by the plaintiff. While passing the impugned order, though the learned trial Court has taken note of the fact that the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner was quashed and set aside by the learned Commissioner, however, the learned trial Court has not considered the vital fact that what would be the effect of the order on the basis of which the suit has been preferred when the order itself has been quashed and set aside. The learned trial Court has merely noted down that the circumstances of the Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are not present in the case and has held that the suit is preferred in compliance of order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner and thus, has rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 9. In view of the above, the present civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Suit No. 05/2010 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 10. No order as to costs.