D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Two suits were Instituted seeking the leave under Section 92 of C.P.C. In one of the suits, being Original Suit No. 2 of 1999, the learned District Judge, Mathura was one of the party, namely, defendant No. 9 filed in respect of the property of the Trust of Sri Lilanand Thakur Pagal Baba Trust Vrindavan, with regard to the temple. in the other suit, being Original Suit No, 5 of 1999 relating to the Management of the property of the Hospital of Sri Lilanand Thakur Pagal Baba, the District Judge was not made a defendant. In both the suits, applications for grant of leave have been filed before the learned District Judge who had granted the leave.
(2.) It is contened that the District Judge has also granted injunction and the said order was challenged before this Court and the order of injunction was set aside by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. by an order dated. The petitioner as one of the defendent in suit has filed an application for transfer before this Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. being transfer application No. which was disposed of on by this Court.
(3.) Now Mr. R. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in these revisions, has challenged the grant of the leave in both the suits, on the ground that in Original Suit No. 2 of 1999 the District Judge was a party and as such he could not try the suit under Section 38 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. Since the trusts were created by one person, therefore, according to him, learned District Judge was also interested in the trust property involved in Original Suit No. 5 of 1999 as such he could not try that suit also. Therefore, the grant of leave is wholly without jurisdiction and hit by Section 38 of the said Act and as such, the leave should be revoked. He also relied on the decision in the case of Ram Kishore Sharma. and others a. Gopi Nath and others. 1979 AWC 393, in support of his contention.;