The authority appointed under Sec. 43 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act is a court and thus amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Shambhu Prasad Singh, J.

1. This application under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure involves an important question of law as to whether the authority under Sec. 43 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (hereafter to be referred to as the Act) is a court and thus amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.115 of the Code.

2. The Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board (hereafter to be referred to as the Board) through its President filed an application before the authority appointed under Sec. 43 of the Act with the following prayers :-

-

"It is accordingly prayed that your honour will be graciously pleased to declare that the Math situated in village Atarsan along with the properties attached to it, of which the opposite party is a trustee comes within the purview of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act. 1951......."

Subsequently the Board also filed a petition for amendment stating therein that schedule of the properties attached to the Math were left out in the original petition by mistake of the typist and prayed that the petition might be amended by adding a schedule of the properties of the Math. An objection was taken before the authority by the petitioners and has also been taken before this Court that the authority had no jurisdiction to decide the nature of the trust and of the properties attached to it. After hearing the parties the authority passed an order on the 17th March, 1967 holding that it had jurisdiction to decide the case before it. The petitioners moved this Court against the said order. At first the matter came up before a learned single Judge of this Court, who referred the matter to a Division Bench.

3. Mr. Jagdish Pandey appearing for the petitioners has contended that the authority appointed under Sec. 43 of the Act is a Court subordinate to this Court within the meaning of Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and this Court can revise its orders. On the other hand Mr. Brajeshwar Mallick appearing for the Board has contended that the authority is merely a persona designate and not a court. The provisions of Section. 43 of the Act and of the relevant rules made Under the Act unmistakably show that the authority is a Court. Subsection (1) of Sec. 43 deals with the appointment of the authority and the proviso to this sub-section lays down as to who can be appointed as an authority. Rule 10 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Rules, 1952, framed under the Act also lays down that applications filed under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 43 shall be duly signed and verified and shall contain the details of the property concerned sufficient to identify it and that the form of such verification shall be the same as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for verifying a plaint. Sub-section (2) of .Section 43 provides for notice to the public as well as to the persons interested in the matter. According to Sub-section (3) before giving its decision the authority has to take into consideration the claims filed before it, that is, the pleadings of the parties, hear them and take such evidence as is adduced before it. Sub-section (8) confers upon the authority the powers of a court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the matters enumerated in that sub-section. Sub-section (9) is important for deciding the question under consideration. It runs as follows :-

-

"Every order of such authority under Sub-section (3) shall be enforceable by any Civil Court having local jurisdiction in the same manner as a decree of such Court."

According to this sub-section the authority has to be treated as a Court, and its order as a decree which can be executed before a Civil Court. From all these, it is plain that the legislature and the rule-making authorities had intention to confer all the powers of a Court upon the authority appointed under Sec. 48 of the Act and that it is a Court.

4. In Abi Saghir V/s. Bibi Asia Bang, AIR 1954 Pat 463 it was held by a Bench of this Court that the District