Indore (Madhya Pradesh): In a ruling clarifying the legal status of the Registrar of Public Trust under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the registrar is not a "court" and, therefore, orders passed by the authority cannot be challenged through a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Justice Vinay Saraf passed the order while dismissing a civil revision petition filed by Shriram Mandir Panchkuiya Dharmik Trust, which had challenged an order of the Registrar, Public Trust, Indore, rejecting its application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The application sought dismissal of proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act for the deletion of several land parcels from the trust's registered property records.
The trust argued that the application seeking deletion of the properties was filed nearly 35 years after the trust's registration in 1983 and was, therefore, not maintainable. After the Registrar rejected the plea, the trust unsuccessfully challenged the order through an earlier civil revision and a writ petition before approaching the High Court again.
Senior advocate Veer Kumar Jain, appearing for respondent Mahant Ramgopaldas, raised a preliminary objection, contending that the registrar is neither a civil court nor a subordinate court within the meaning of the CPC, making the revision petition itself not maintainable.
Accepting the objection, the High Court relied on the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, the CPC, and earlier Division Bench and Coordinate Bench rulings to hold that although the registrar exercises certain powers similar to those of a civil court during inquiries, the office does not acquire the status of a court. Consequently, the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC cannot be invoked against the registrar's orders.
The court observed that any challenge to an order passed by the registrar must be pursued before the appropriate forum provided under the Public Trusts Act and not through a civil revision. While dismissing the petition as not maintainable, Justice Saraf granted the trust liberty to challenge the registrar's June 13, 2025 order before the competent forum in accordance with law.
The court also directed that while the registrar may continue with the pending proceedings, no final order shall be passed for 15 days from the date of the judgment, giving the petitioner time to avail an appropriate legal remedy.
