The main legal point established in the judgment is that the directions given to the receivers were in the nature of mere directions and did not involve conferment of power.

1. These revision petitions arise from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Trichur in civil miscellaneous appeal Nos. 34, 33 and 51 of 1969 on the file of his court which arose respectively from M. P. Nos, 818/68, 763 and 2715 of 1969 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff Court, Trichur. The M Ps. were preferred in OS. 1061/62, which was a suit filed for declaration that the election of the defendants as trustees of the Chaldean church at Trichur on 9-12-1962 was void and for an injunction to restrain them from functioning as trustees. In the course of the suit, I.A. 13/64 was filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of a Receiver for the administration of the church and its properties. The application was allowed by the trial court; but on appeal by defendants 1 to 10, the application was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge of Trichur. From the order of the Addl. District Judge, the aggrieved plaintiffs came up in revision before this court in CRP. 467/66 and this court in reversal of the judgment of the learned appellate judge allowed the revision, which eventually was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Ia its proceedings dated 29-1-1968 the Supreme Court in confirming the order gave the following further direction, viz.:

"The order of the High Court appointing receivers shall continue. The receivers shall function subject to the limitation that they will not interfere with, or take part in, the management of the spiritual affairs of the church. The Trustees will be at liberty to ask for directions from the court with regard to the necessary disbursement from the funds in the hands of the receivers."

Thereafter the M. Ps. mentioned above were preferred by the plaintiffs requesting the court to give certain directions to the Receivers. In M. P. 818/68, which is the subject matter of C. R. P. 1073/70, the request made was to issue directions to the Receivers to take possession of the two Bandarams, viz., the Kallarakkal Bandaram and Kurishupalli Bandaram and the collections therein. In M. P. 763/69, which is the subject matter of CRP. 1074/70, the request made was that the Receivers should be given the direction to disburse the salaries with arrears to the priests working in the parishes which were subsidised by the Trustees; and in M. P. 2715/69, which is the subject matter of C. R. P. 1080/70, the request made was to issue directions to the Receivers to take possession of the Bishop's palace, car, printing presses, Seminary, books, furniture, umbrellas, crosses etc. The learned Munsiff in allowing these petitions has issued directions to the Receivers to take possession of the Bandarams and to disburse the salaries to the priests from out of the trust funds. But in respect of the palace, library and furniture of the 1st defendant, the court refused to issue any direction as the court thought that any such direction is likely to be interpreted as interference with the spiritual affairs of the church, as the 1st defendant was considered to be their spiritual head by one section of the parishioners. But such a reservation was not made in respect of the umbrella, valuables, gold and silver cross. These articles were found to fetch considerable income as it was the practice to rent them out. So the receivers were directed to take steps for getting from the 1st defendant the collection of the rents made by him from that source.

2. The defendants aggrieved by the above orders preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals to the District Judge of Trichur. The learned District Judge has dismissed the appeals holding that the orders are not appealable.

Under 0.43, R.1 (s), C. P.C., orders passed under 0.40, R.1 or 4 alone can come. The question, therefore, for decision is whether the orders passed by the learned Munsiff in the various M. Ps. would fall under 0.40, R.1 C.P.C. The learned appellate judge has held that they would not and on a review of the position in all its aspects I am also of the same view. The matter was argued