THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.293 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellants herein filed O.S.No.485 of 1985 in the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents, claiming reliefs in the form of perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction, and other directions in relation to the protection and maintenance of Smsanavatika at Imliban, Hyderabad. They pleaded that the Smasanavatika is one of the oldest establishments in Hyderabad and a Goshala is also being run in that. It was complained that the respondents have either mismanaged the Vatika or have permitted the encroachments or unrelated activities take place. The suit was dismissed for default on 31.07.1997. Therefore, the appellants filed I.A.No.2074 of 1997 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. It was stated that on 31.07.1997, the matter was passed over on a representation made by the junior counsel of the appellants and by the time the senior counsel came from the High Court, the suit was dismissed for default. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 26.07.2002. Hence, this C.M.A. under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. The suit was filed almost in public interest and in a representative capacity. In the suits of this nature, there is bound to be some amount of laxity. Obviously for that reason, Rule 8(5) of Order I C.P.C. directs that in case, the person who is suing or defending does not evince the required amount of interest, the Court can substitute a party with another. The object underlying this provision is that the public interest must not be permitted to suffer. The record in the instant case however discloses that the suit was dismissed on previous occasions also and the indulgence shown by the trial Court was not taken advantage of by the appellants. 23 years have elapsed ever since the suit was instituted. The restoration of the suit at this stage would lead to several complications. One important development that has taken place in the recent past is that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act was amended and Endowment Tribunal was constituted for adjudication of the disputes in relation to the properties owned by the religious and charitable Endowments and other matters connected with the same. Obviously, the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to that extent is excluded. The appellants can avail the remedy before the Tribunal, if their grievance subsists. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the remedies before the Endowment Tribunal, if their grievance subsists. If the appellants file any application before the Tribunal, none of the observations made by the trial Court in the order under appeal shall be treated as final or binding on the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 19.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.293 of 2003 Date: 19.08.2010 JSU