The learned Subordinate Judge had the power to pass the orders of appointment on 28th July, 1938, but he had not power to cancel those orders in the circumstances of this case.

Burn, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly on 5th October, 1938, in O.S. No. 32 of 1913. The suit was a. scheme suit in which a scheme was framed for the Sri Kailasanathaswami temple at Tirumanur. Under the scheme the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly is entrusted with the duty of appointing trustees to fill vacancies as they arise. The order of the lower Court shows that three vacancies arose in the office of trustee and the learned Subordinate Judge was moved to fill up the vacancies. The matter was posted for hearing to the 28th July, 1938, and on that date the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order appointing the present petitioners a& trustees. The order, however, was not issued from the office. On the 1st August, 1938, an application was made by one Manikkam Pillai who had been a candidate for the office of trustee to the Subordinate Judge praying that the order of the 28th July appointing the three trustees should be set aside, that the matter should be reopened and the petition disposed of after hearing all the applicants. It was alleged in the affidavit filed in support of that application that on the morning of the 28th July Manikkam Pillai and some other applicants came to the Sub-Court, found that a Sessions case was going on and were informed (by whom it was not stated) that the petition would not be taken up that day. They were informed, he said that the petition had been adjourned and posted to some day in August and therefore Manikkam Pillai and some other applicants left the Court at about 2 P.M. The Subordinate Judge, they learnt, had taken up the matter later in the afternoon about 3-30 P.M. and had appointed the three present petitioners as trustees. On this application the learned Subordinate Judge gave notice to the present petitioners and on the 8th September, the learned Subordinate Judge decided to review his order of the 28th July and to inquire afresh into the matter of filling up the vacancies in the office of trustees. He therefore called for fresh applications and on the 5th October he passed the order against which this revision petition has been brought. In that order the learned Subordinate Judge purports to cancel the appointments of the three petitioners for reasons stated by him and to appoint the three respondents. The petitioners case is that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to review or cancel the order which he passed on the 28th July appointing them as trustees. They therefore desire that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge should be set aside.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondents maintains that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge was proper. He contends on the one hand that, if the learned Subordinate Judge was acting as a Court, he had inherent power to set aside the order which had been passed on the 28th July at a time when his clients were under a mistake or misapprehension. On the other hand, if the Subordinate Judge was acting only as a persona designata and not as a Court, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that his order is not liable to be revised. In support of his contention learned Counsel refers to the case reported in Moharmani Kuer v. Bhankumar Chand AIR1936Pat176 and another case reported in Sivarao v. Gangamma (1934) 68 M.L.J. 66 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 84. These cases, I think, are not parallel. The first is a case in which, owing to the omission of the Courts establishment, no notice was sent to one patty and the latter case is one in which, owing to the act of the Judge himself, one party was not fully heard. In the present case it cannot, I think, be fairly alleged that there was any act of the Court by which the respondents or any other of the applicants for the office of trustee were misled. They do not say who informed them that the matter had been adjourned and would not be taken up on the 28th July. It has been stated that their Counsel looked into