1. The controversy arose obviously over a misdescription or an irregular prayer sought for by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board when it filed I.A. No. 417/72 in O.S. No. 26/48 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. An application under S. 151 C.P.C. was filed by the first respondent Wskf Board for issuing directions to the effect that a scheme earlier framed for Mohideen Andavar Pallivasal at Pottalpudor shall be deemed to be the scheme framed by the State Wakf Board in view of Central Act 29 of 1954, to enable it to manage and administer the same in their own right and in effect to substitute themselves as the authors of the scheme in the place of the Civil Court, which or orig inally framed it. This application was opposed by the petitioner amongst others on many grounds. The most important of the grounds of objections is that the Wakf Board cannot substitute itself in the place of the Civil Court as is sought for in the petition and, therefore, its application was not maintainable. The lower Court went into the question, referred to certain well-known decisions of our Court and allowed the application of the Board by substituting the words “Tamil Nadu Wakf Board” in the p