JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition arises out of a suit brought by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the removal of the petitioners from the office of Mutwallis of a waqf. 2. Syed Wajid Husain, Ch. Sharif Ahmad and Munshi Abdul Rehman brought the suit against Haflz Zarif Husain, Molvi Mohammad Ayub and Sunni Central Waqf Board with these allegations Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have been working as Mutwallis of a certain Sunni Waqf. There has been mismanagement. The plaintiffs approached Sunni Central Board of Waqfs for filing a suit against the Mutwallis. But the Sunni Central Board indicated sympathy with defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs therefore obtained sanction of the Advocate General. Notice was also given to the Sunni Central Board. The main relief in the plaintiff was for removal of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from the Office of Mutwallis. 3. The claim was resisted by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They raised three preliminary objections. The first objection was that the suit under Sec. 92, C.P.C. was not maintainable, in view of the provisions of U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act (No. XIII of 1936). The second contention was that, the suit was not maintainable, as there were no proper allegations against the Sunni Central Board. The third contention was that, in view of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1960, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. All the three preliminary objections were overruled by the learned Additional District Judge of Saharanpur by his order dated 14-7-61. He decided to proceed with the suit. This writ petition is directed against the order of respondent No. 4 dated 14-7-1961. 4. The three preliminary objections raised by the defendants petitioners were discussed by respondent No. 4 under issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Issue No. 5 related to the bar of jurisdiction by virtue of Act No. XVI of 1960. It was held that that Act did not apply to this case. This position was not disputed by Mr. N. A. Kazmi appearing for the petitioners. It will, therefore, be sufficient to confine our attention to the findings of respondent No. 4 on issues Nos. 3 and 4. 5. The broad contention of Mr. N.A. Kazmi under issues Nos. It was held that that Act did not apply to this case. This position was not disputed by Mr. N. A. Kazmi appearing for the petitioners. It will, therefore, be sufficient to confine our attention to the findings of respondent No. 4 on issues Nos. 3 and 4. 5. The broad contention of Mr. N.A. Kazmi under issues Nos. 3 and 4 is that, in view of the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1936, the present suit under Sec. 92, C.P.C. is not maintainable. In support of this contention, Mr. Kazmi relied upon Secs. 18, 48 and 53 of the U.P. Muslim Waqts Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). Sec. 18 of the Act enumerates function of the Central Board. Cl. (1) of sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 18 is: "To sanction the institution of suits under Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1808, relating to waqfs to which this Act applies." The significance of the sanction mentioned under Sec. 18(2) (f) can be gathered from Sec. 48 of the Act. Sec. 48 deals with civil suits relating to waqfs, and runs thus :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the contrary, a suit to obtain any of the reliefs mentioned in Sec. 92 of the said code relating to any waqf to which this act applies may be instituted by the Central Board without obtaining the consent referred to in that Section, or by any person interested in the waqf with the previous sanction in writing of the Central Board and without obtaining the consent referred to in that section, provided that if in suit the validity or propriety of any order or direction passed or made by the Central Board is challenged, a suit may be instituted with out previous sanction after giving two months notice to the Central Board as provided under Sec. 53." 6. Mr. Kazmi pointed out that, Sec. 48 provides for the filing of a suit with the consent of the Central Board. Admittedly respondents Nos. 1 and 2 failed to secure Central Board's sanction contemplated by Sec. 48 of the Act. Mr. Kazmi therefore contended that the present suit is not maintainable. It must, however, be pointed out that the provision under Sec. 48 is permissive. Sec. 48 introduces two other methods besides the specific method described in Sec. 92, C.P.C. Under Sec, 92. 1 and 2 failed to secure Central Board's sanction contemplated by Sec. 48 of the Act. Mr. Kazmi therefore contended that the present suit is not maintainable. It must, however, be pointed out that the provision under Sec. 48 is permissive. Sec. 48 introduces two other methods besides the specific method described in Sec. 92, C.P.C. Under Sec, 92. C.P.C., plaintiffs must secure the Advocate General's consent. But according to Sec. 48 of Act No. XIII of 1936, Advocate General's sanction is not necessary, if the suit is filed either by the Central Board or by a person armed with a permission from the Central Board. In those special cases, Advocate General's sanction would not be necessary. It is true that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 failed to avail of the special remedy provided by Sec_ 48 of the Act. But that would not prevent the plaintiffs from having resort to the normal method provided by Sec. 92, C.P.C. The plaintiffs urged that they have obtained the Advocate General's consent. If that is the true position, the suit under Sec. 92, C.P.C. would be maintainable. The plaintiffs' failure to secure the consent of the Central Board is not fatal to the suit. 7 Lastly, we have to consider Sec. 53 of the Act. Sec. 53 states: "No suit shall be instituted against a Central Board in respect of any act purporting to be done by such Central Board under colour of this act or for any relief in respect of any waqf until expiration of two months next after notice. 8. Mr. Kazmi pointed out that the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against the Sunni Central Waqf Board. It was, therefore, urged that the suit is barred by Sec. 53 of the Act. Sec. 53 is meant for the protection of the Sunni Central Board. If a party claims any relief against the Sunni Central Board, the Board must have two months notice to prepare its defence. That is the idea underlying Sec. 53 of the Act. Sec. 53 was not meant for the benefit of private parties. According to the plaintiffs, they did give two months notice contemplated by Sec. 53 of the Act. 9. It is true that Sec. 53 contemplates a relief against the Central Board. That is the idea underlying Sec. 53 of the Act. Sec. 53 was not meant for the benefit of private parties. According to the plaintiffs, they did give two months notice contemplated by Sec. 53 of the Act. 9. It is true that Sec. 53 contemplates a relief against the Central Board. But a relief against the Central Board is not a condition for the maintainability of a suit under Sec. 92, C.P.C. Sec. 53 of the Act contemplates two situations. The plaintiffs may have some grievance against the Central Board or the plaintiffs may claim some relief against the Central Board. In the present case the plaintiffs do not claim any relief against the Sunni Central Board as such. But it appears from the plaint that the plaintiffs have some grievance against the Central Board, inasmuch as the Board is alleged to be supporting defendants 2 and 3. That circumstance was sufficient to attract Sec. 53 of the Act. 10. The Additional District Judge was right in holding that the suit is not barred under Secs. 18, 48 and 53 of the Act. The petition is dismissed with costs to respondent No. 1. The stay order dated 27-9-1961 is vacated.