ESWARASWAMY TEMPLE Vs. JANGAM NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions are before me, as the Additional Sessions Judge (Sri P. Raghu-nadha Sastry), Kurnool, has referred them to this Court, being of the view that the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone, committed illegality in not only dismissing the petitions tiled before him Under Section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (corresponding to Section 93 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966), for defauft, but also in refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him Under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. even after he wag moved to exercise the jurisdiction under the said provision. It is in that view that the Additional Sessions Judge (Sri P. Raghunatha Sastry) made the reference for interference by this Court.

(2.) I may at the outset point out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge as albo the Magistrate failed to understand tbe true scope of Section 93 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1966 and betrayed their ignorance of the fact that 8. 561 A, Criminal P. C. does not clothe except the High Court with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

(3.) A trustee of certain Temples in Racherla Village, Dhone Taluk, filed petitions before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone Under Section 87 of the Madras Act (corresponding to Section 93 (2) of the new Act) seeking delivery of possession of the records, accounts and properties of the Temples, as there was resistance from an ex-office, holder. All that the aforesaid provision lays down is that, where the successor is resisted in or prevented from obtaining the possession of the records, accounts or properties of the institution or endowment by such ex-office-holder or by any person who is otherwise not entitled to be in such possession, any Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction shall, on an application made by the successor or the Executive Officer, by an order after notice to the ex-office-holder direct deli-very of the possession of such records, accounts and properties of the institution or endowment, to the successor within the time specified in such order. The Magistrate, on the applications male by the trustee, issued delivery warrants to the respondent, in the manner prescribed Under Section 93 (2) (b), fixing a date for the return of the warrants. It would appear that, on the date fixed for return of the warrants, they were not returned and, therefore, the Magistrate thought fit to dispose of the applications by dismissing them for default. The facts narrated in the order of reference would show that delivery was effected subsequently. There. after, petitions were filed before the Magistrate for setting aside the orders passed by him for default and the Magistrate, while holding that; he had the inherent power to restore the applications dismissed by him for default, how-ever, declined to exercise "that power" on the ground that the warrants were not returned by the date to which the applications were tested, and, therefore, any delivery effected thereafter, was unauthorized and as such, he was not inclined to set aside the orders dismissing the applications for default. It is thereafter that revision petitions were filed before the said Additional Sessions Judge, who made the reference for the reasons already referred to.