K. J. Shetty, C.J. - (1.) THIS revision raises the question as to the scope and object of Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). The matter has been referred by the learned Single Judge (Mr. A. N. Varma, J.) differing with the view taken by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1320 of 1974.
(2.) THE facts are these : Smt. Bhagwati Devi, respondent, is a Managing Trustee of the temples, one of Mahadeoji, and, the other of Shri Dauji Swami. Both the temples are situated in the town of Bhongaon , District Mainpuri. In 1973, Trilok Chandra, petitioner wanted that there should be a Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the temple. He moved the District Judge, Mainpuri under Section 7 of the Act for an order to appoint him and others as Sarvarakars. On May 28, 1973 the District Judge made an order accepting his request. On coming to know of the said order, Smt. Bhagwati Devi filed an application under Section 151, CPC for recalling the order since she was not heard in the matter. THE District Judge after hearing the parties passed the following order :- " Taking all these facts into consideration, the order dated 28-5-1973 is set aside and the application of Trilok Chandra under section 7 of the Act is rejected. " Challenging the legality of the said order, Trilok Chandra preferred revision petition no. 1320 of 1974 in this court. The only question that arose for consideration in the revision petition was whether the District Judge was justified in cancelling his earlier order of appointing the Committee of ManageNo.1.ment of the Trust. Hari Swarup, J. before whom the revision came for disposal held that the order of the District Judge dated May 28, 1973 was an order without jurisdiction and if the illegal order was set aside by another order, the latter order could not be set aside to restore the earlier order. In support of this conclusion, learned judge also made the following observations :- " The power under section 7 clearly is a summary power for resolving difficulties in the management of the trust. It does not give the court any power to appoint the committee of management. " In other words, learned Judge was of opinion that section 7 of the Act did not confer jurisdiction on the court to appoint a Committee of management, since the procedure thereunder is purely summary. The position thus continued for all these years with Smt. Bhagwati Devi remaining as the sole Trustee of the temple. She now appears to have become old. She has felt the need of some assistance from others to manage the affairs of the trust. So she made an application under section 7 to appoint some persons (named by her) as a committee of management. Trilok Chandra again came to the picture. He opposed the application of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. But the learned District Judge dismissed his objection. He held that Trilok Chandra had filed an earlier application for appointment of himself as Sarvarakar and since it had already been dismissed, he has now no right in the matter. The request of Smt. Bhagwati Devi was allowed appointing a Committee of Management to assist her in the management of the Trust. The said order has been assailed by Trilok Chandra in this civil revision.
(3.) WHEN the matter came for consideration before learned Single Judge, the earlier decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1320 of 1974 was cited in support of the contention that section 7 of the Act does not authorise the Court to appoint Committee of Management to manage the Trust. The learned Single Judge found it difficult to share that view. He has accordingly referred the matter to a larger Bench. Counsel for the petitioner urged that section 7 confers only advisory jurisdiction on the Court. The Court is required to dispose of matters in a summary way. In the exercise of such a limited jurisdiction, a Committee of Management of the trust cannot be appointed. For the respondents it was urged that section 7 imposes no such restriction. All matters which could be conveniently disposed of by summary procedure fall within the scope of section 7. It was also urged that the impugned order does not fall outside such categories.;