ORDER :- The opposite parties filed an application under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act for leave to institute a suit against the applicant stating that the trust in suit is being mismanaged by the applicant and the income of the trust misappropriated.

2. The suit was contested by the applicant. The learned Additional District Judge, Kanpur allowed the application and accorded permission to the opposite parties to institute the suit. This revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge.

3. Two points have been canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the applicant: (1) That the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to dispose of the application under Section 18 in the absence of any special notification by the State Government empowering him in that behalf and (2) That the learned Additional District Judge has not given any specific finding that the trust is a public trust. Reliance has been placed by him in Bhagwan Sitaram Khasale v. Namdeo Narayan Gore, AIR 1961 Bom 239 wherein it was laid down that:

"An Additional District judge has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for removal of a trust under S.14, Religious Endowments Act, unless he is empowered in that behalf by the State Government under S.2 of the Act".

Under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) no suit can be entertained under the Act without a preliminary application being first made to the Court for leave to institute such suit. After the leave is obtained a person interested can sue for breach of the trust under Section 14 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act defines the meaning of a Civil Court and the Court and is as under:-

"2. In this Act - the words "Civil Court" and "Court" shall (save as provided in Section 10) mean the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction in the district in which (or any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which) the mosque, temple or religious establishment is situate, relating to which, or to the endowment whereof, any suit shall be instituted or application made under the provisions of this Act."

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Additional District Judge not being a Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government was not competent to dispose of the application under Section 18 of the Act. It is admitted that the application was initially moved before the District Judge, that is the right Court. It was thereafter transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge for disposal.

4. Under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act the following four classes of Civil Courts are constituted:-

(1) The Court of the District Judge;

(2) The Court of the Additional Judge;

(3) The Court of the Subordinate Judge; and

(4) The Court of the Munsif.

Section 8 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act reads that:

"(1) Where the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal, the State Government may, (having consulted) the High Court appoint such Additional Judges as may be requisite.

(2) Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them, and, in the discharge of those functions, they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge."

The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act consolidates and amends the law relating to Civil Courts in U.P. and it is the only Act that creates Civil Courts in U.P. The expression of the word "Court" and "Civil Court" in the Act refers to the Civil Courts created under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act further authorises the District Judge to assign any work pending before him to an Additional Judge who shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. Under the Religious Endowments Act the power can be conferr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document