ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. A short question of considerable importance would arise for consideration in this writ petition. Whether the civil Court is entitled to pass an order of injunction in a suit filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (‘the Act’) against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments passed under Section 83(1) of the Act is the question. This question arises in the following background facts.
2. The petitioner claims to be in possession of premises bearing No. 1-7-30, Alwal. It is his case that the land and the premises does not belong to Vara Vara Narsing Rao Dharmashala of Sri Balaji Venkateswara Temple (hereafter called ‘the temple’) and that when he obtained permission from the Alwal Gram Panchayat for the purpose of constructing compound wall and renovation of the structure, the temple did not object for it.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy District submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, the third respondent herein, inter alia stating that premises No. 1-7-30 situated at Alwal belongs to the temple, that the petitioner herein is not a tenant or a lessee but encroached upon the temple premises. Therefore, action was initiated under Section 83 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner who is allegedly encroacher of the temple property. Before the third respondent, the In-charge Executive Officer gave evidence besides marking necessary documents. The petitioner herein opposed the application under Section 83(1) of the Act being O.A. No. 36 of 1998. By an order dated 10-4-2003, the third respondent declared the petitioner as an encroacher and directed him to vacate and handover the premises to the Executive Officer of the temple within ten days.
4. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Act, any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (4) of Section 83 is given a remedy by way of filing a suit in the civil Court to establish that the charitable or religious institution has no title to the property. But, curiously, the petitioner herein filed a revision under Section 92 of the Act before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad. When appropriate orders are not passed on this, he filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 8061 of 2003. This Court, while ordering stay of eviction, disposed of the writ petition directing the Regional Joint Commissioner to dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law. The Regional Joint Commissioner, by an order dated 11-9-2003, dismissed the revision petition being R.P. No. 14 of 2003. Before proceeding with further narration of the events leading to filing of the writ petition, be it noted that when the Act provides for a reference to the civil Court or provides for a remedy by way of a civil suit, a revision petition under Sub-section (1) of Section 92 is not maintainable. No elaborate reasoning is necessary except to refer to Sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Act which reads as under.
92. Power of the Commissioner to call for records and pass orders :–(1) The Commissioner may either suo motu or on the application, call for and examine the record of any Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, or of any other officer subordinate to him or of any Executive Officer or any trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment, other than a math or a specific endowment attached to a math in respect of any administrative or quasi-judicial decision taken or order passed under this Act, but not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application, or reference to a Court is provided by this Act to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order taken or passed, and if in any case, it appears to the Commissioner that such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly.
5. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 84, the Act provides for a suit against any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 83. Therefore, ex facie, the Regional Joint Commissioner would not have entertained a revision petition against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner.
6. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 598 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District on 19-8-2003 and the same is pending. Be that as it is, after dismissal of the revision petition by the Regional Joint Commissioner, the second respondent herein, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 93 of the Act. He statedly filed an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 93 of the Act seeking stay of execution of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The said revision was presented in the inward section of the Endowments Department on 6-11-2003. In the meanwhile, the petitioner alleges that as the Government of Andhra Pradesh has not passed any orders under Section 93(2), he is exposed to the threat of eviction by execution of the orders in O.A. No. 36 of 1998. Therefore, as if the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is an alternative remedy to Section 93 of the Act, he chose to file the instant writ petition before this Court praying to declare the action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in not passing stay orders on the revision petition as illegal and arbitrary. He also seeks an order to set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 36 of 1998, dated 10-4-2003.
7. The matter was heard for a considerable length of time. The petitioner has already availed the remedy provided by the Act by filing a suit being O.S. No. 598 of 2003 against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 36 of 1998, dated 10-4-2003. In that view of the matter, the Regional joint Commissioner ought not to have entertained any revision under Section 92 of the Act. Further, when the Act provides for a suit, a revision petition under Section 92 is not maintainable. When revision petition itself is not maintainable, I am not convinced that a further revision to the Government under Section 93 of the Act would also be maintainable. Indeed, Sub-section (3) of Section 93 of the Act makes it very clear that the Government is not entitled to exercise the powers under Sub-section (1) (that of suo motu calling for the records and modifying the decisions of the lower authorities) unless the matter falls under Section 92 of the Act. So to say, an aggrieved party has to first approach the Commissioner/Regional Joint Commissioner under Section 92 and then only such person is entitled to invoke the revisional power of the Government under Section 93 of the Act. When the Commissioner or Regional Joint Commissioner is not empowered to entertain a revision petition either suo motu or on an application against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 83(4) (which is prohibited by Sub-section (1) of Section 92), a revision petition itself is not maintainable under Section 93(1). Such being the case, I do not think, this Court can grant the relief as prayed for.
8. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that having regard to Sub-section (3) of Section 84, the civil Court is not empowered to grant injunction by way of interim measure when a suit for declaration is filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Act. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the submission. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 84 are relevant and read as under:
84. Mode of eviction on failure of removal of the encroachments as directed by the Deputy Commissioner:–(1) Omitted, as not relevant for this case.
(2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall prevent any person aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (4) of Section 83 from instituting a suit in a Court to establish that the charitable or religious institution or endowment has no title to the land, building or space:
Provided that no Civil Court shall take cognizance of any suit instituted after six months from the date of receipt of the order under Sub-section (4) of Section 83;
Provided further that no such suit shall be instituted by a person who is let into the possession of the land, building or space, or who is a lessee, licensee or mortgagee, of the institution or endowment.
(3) No injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any proceedings taken or about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 83.
Sub-section (3) of Section 84 prohibits the grant of injunction by the civil Court (i), in respect of any proceedings taken by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 83; (ii) in respect of any proceedings about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioned under Section 83. The same, on a true construction does not refer to the power of the civil Court to entertain a suit, which is dealt with in Sub-section (2) of Section 84. Further, Sub-section (3), presumably, having regard to the salutary principles contained in Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, prohibits any Court to grant injunction prohibiting exercise of statutory power and bars the civil Court from granting injunction in respect of proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 83. The same does not bar the civil Court from granting injunction when a suit is entertained under Sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Act.
9. The power to grant injunction, warrant of arrest, direction to furnish security, to appoint Receiver and to make other interlocutory orders, is recognized by Sections 94 and 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as supplemental power of the civil Court. Section 94 CPC reads as under.
94. Supplemental proceedings :–In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,–
(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show-cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;
(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property;
(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;
(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;
(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.
10. In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, every civil Court shall have inter alia power to grant temporary injunction and in the case of disobedience commit the person to civil prison. This power has not been diluted nor whittled down by Section 84 of the Act. Indeed, even without there being Section 94 CPC or Order XXXIX in CPC, the power of the civil Court to grant injunction in a suit filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 84 can be sustained on the language of Sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Act itself. If such power is not conceded, an encroacher who has suffered an order under Section 83 would stand the risk of losing the property or possession and though the civil Court has got power of restitution, it will be futile exercise and Sub-section (2) of Section 84 is rendered nugatory. Therefore, on a true construction of Sub-section (3) of Section 84 of the Act and Section 94 CPC, this Court is of the opinion that even in a suit filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 84, civil Court has power to grant injunction notwithstanding Sub-section (3) of Section 84 which only prohibits civil Court from staying the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to move the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for appropriate orders to protect his possession. No relief can be granted in this writ petition.
11. The Writ petition, subject to the above observations, is dismissed at the admission stage.