S. Awasthy, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15-6-89 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 16 of 1989, transferring the case to the Court of 5th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge.

2. The non-applicant (herein) made a reference under section 26 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the 'Trust Act') to the Court of the District Judge, Raipur, for removal of the petitioner from the office of the working trustee and appointing a new trustee in his place. A prayer for appointment of receiver to manage the trust properly was also made; in the alternative suitable direction was prayed for. The reference is being contested by the petitioner.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant (herein) is that the reference under section 26 of the Trust Act should be adjudicated by the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district (District Judge) and not by any additional Judge to that Court. His submission is that the order passed by the learned District Judge conferring jurisdiction on the additional Judge to his Court is without jurisdiction. The Court of the District Judge only is the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in the civil district under section 7(1) of the M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the 'Courts Act'). His further submission is that the Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge is not the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction hence has no power to act as "Court" under section 2 (1) of the Trust Act, 1951. He further submitted that sections 5 and 6 of the Courts Act have not been amended, but sections 7(2) and section 8 of the Act have been amended which make it clear that the Court of the District Judge and the Court of the Additional Judge to that Court are two different Courts. It is only the Court of the District Judge which is the principal Court of original jurisdiction. He relied on the case of Badriprasad v. Umashankar 1961 JLJ 329 = 1961 MPLJ 394, for his submission.

4. The learned counsel for the non-applicant argued that Court of the additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge is included in the Court of the District Judge who has power to transfer business to the additional Judges. After transfer of the case, the Additional Judge exercises the same jurisdiction. He relied on the cases of Dharam Sheela Bai v. Ram Dayal Bhatnagar 1961 JLJ 466 = 1961 MPLJ 979, Gangagir Chela v. Rasal Singh AIR 1965 Pun. 472, and Laxmansingh v. Kesharbai 1965 JLJ 710 = AIR 1966 MP 166.

5. Sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Courts Act reads as under:

"(4). The Court of District Judge shall include the Court of Additional Judge........... ........,........"

Under section 13 of the Courts Act the Explanation reads as under :-

Explanation:- The Court of the Civil Judge or the Court of the District Judge shall include an Additional Judge to that Court"

Section 6 (c) of the Courts Act gives jurisdiction to the Court of the District Judge to hear and determine any suit or original proceeding without restriction as regards value. Section 7 of the Courts Act lays down that the Court of the District Judge shall be the Principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in the civil district. Section 7 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh, Civil Courts (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1980 reads as under :

"(2) An Additional Judge to the Court of a District Judge, an Additional District Judge an Additional Judge to the Court of an Additional District Judge shall discharge any if the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of Principal civil Court of original jurisdiction which the District Judge may, by general or special order, assign to him and in the discharge of such functions he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge."

6. Section 15 (1) of the Courts Act lays down :-

"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), or the law