The main legal point established in the judgment is that the finality of an order passed by the District Judge under Sec.32(3) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act precludes the remedy of appeal, rendering the revision application not maintainable.

1. This Civil Revision application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 29.6.2005 passed by the District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous Case No. 211 of 1999 dismissing the said Miscellaneous case.

2. The Stamp Reporter has objected to the maintainability of the revision application. It has been pointed out that in view of Sec. 55 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act an appeal shall lie.

3. Petitioners contested the report and by order dated 15.9.2005 the question of maintainability was directed to be considered at the time of admission.

4. It is common ground that the District Judge has passed the impugned order in exercise of its power under Section 32(3) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

5. Mr. Saxena, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that an order passed by the District Judge under Sec.32 of the Act is final and in view of aforesaid, petitioners rightly resorted to the remedy of revision. Hence, the objection of the Stamp Reporter is fit to be overruled.

6. Mr. A.R Jittu, appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 and 7, however contend that under Sec. 55 of the Act every order passed by the District Judge is appealable unless otherwise provided in the Act. They submit that no other remedy is provided under the Act against an order passed by the District Judge under Sec.32(3) of the Act, and, as such, petitioners have remedy of appeal. They point out that once the petitioners have remedy of appeal, revision would not lie.

7. The submission advanced necessitates examination of the scheme of the Act. Sec.32(3) of the Act, inter alia, confers power to the District Judge for varying, modifying or setting aside the scheme submitted to it and subject to the result of such application, the order of the Board under sub-sections 1 and 2 shall be final. Sec.32(4) of the Act provides that any order passed by the District Judge on any application made under sub- sec. 3 shall be final. Sec. 55 of the Act which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:-

"55. Orders of District Judge to be appealable to the High Court.- (1) Unless otherwise provided in this Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against every order passed by the District Judge under this Act.

(2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section."

8. Mr. Saxena, points out that the order of the District Judge becomes final by virtue of Sec.32(4) of the Act, hence, remedy of appeal shall not be available. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kailash Rai and Another vs. Ramjee Singh and Others (AIR 1975 Patna 144) and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 7 of the judgement which reads as follows:-

"7. For the reasons stated above, we allow this civil revision application with costs payable by Opposite Party No.1 and set aside the impugned order of the learned District Judge, hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 64.00 only."

9. He points out that had the Civil Revision application not maintainable the Court ought not to have entertained that.

10. Reliance has also been placed on another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal Das and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others (AIR 1992 Patna 70) and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 8 of the judgment which reads as follows:-

"8. The order passed under this sub-section is final which can be challenged in this Court by an application under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure."

11. Having considered the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Saxena and the authority relied on are clearly distinguishable. True it is that an order passed by the District Judge under Sec.32(3) of the Act is final by virtue of Sec.32(4) of the Act but that itself not make the order rev