- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.2.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 26-C of 2006, Estate of Dwarika Nath Mandir Trust v. Dwarika Nath Mandir.
(2.) Submission of learned Counsel for the revisionist is that application under Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure could not be allowed on account of the fact that the order dated 17.9.2004 has been acted upon and in accordance with the permission granted by the District Judge the sale-deed has been executed on 5.9.2006 ignoring the fact that Sri Prayag Narain Rastogi, Chief Managing Trustee of the revisionist had died on 17.2.2006 and in these circumstances the exercise undertaken by the learned Additional District Judge will be a futile exercise under law and will be of no consequence. He further submits that the property in question is a trust property and the Respondent No. 2 has raised vague and frivolous claim before the Additional District Judge while moving the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure and he has got no right and title over the property in question and the application at his behest was not maintainable.
(3.) Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the application has been moved by the Respondent No. 2 only on account of the fact that it was a personal property and not a trust property and still the question whether it is a trust property or personal property is to be adjudicated upon by the Court below and neither the evidence in this regard has been adduced nor any opportunity has been given to the parties to adduce evidence in this regard. He further submits that even if the trial Court comes to the conclusion after allowance of the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure that it is a trust property, permission will automatically stand and if it comes to the conclusion that it is a personal property of the Respondent No. 2, then the consequences will follow as contemplated under law.;