Judgment Mahapatra, J. 1. These two applications in revision are directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge on the 15th of April, 1964 permitting the opposite parties 1 to 13 to be added as co-plaintiffs. Civil Revision No. 572 of 1964, is by the plaintiff, the Majlis, and Civil Revision No. 606 of 1964 is by defendant No. 2. Since the grounds of objection are identical in both the cases, both of them are taken up together and will be covered by this judgment. 2. Hussainy Meer Syed Tafazzul Karim, a contractor and notable citizen of Jamshedpur created a trust by a registered deed on the 6th of May 1945. Subsequently he also created another trust. The Majlis appointed under the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 initiated a proceeding before the District Judge at Dhan-bad asking for several reliefs enumerated in its plaint Hussain V/s. Syed Meer Tafazzul Karim was the first defendant, and there were eight others impleaded as defendants also. The first defendant has died in the meanwhile. The proceeding was initiated more or less in the form of a plaint and was registered as Title suit No 19 of 1958. That it was a proceeding under the Bihar Waqfs Act. 1947, is not in dispute although there was a controversy between the parties as to under which provision of that Act the proceedings were instituted. At the instance of the plaintiff-Majlis, notices under Order 1. Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure were issued, but no one appeared in answer to that notice. Later, the present opposite parties 1 to 13 applied to the District Judge Chaibassa (by that time the proceeding had come before him after the creation of District Judgeship of Singhbhum at Chaibassa) to be added as co-plaintiffs. This matter was put up on the 11th of March 1964, and the case was fixed for consideration of that matter or the 21st March, 1964. On that date, however, the lawyers from Patna who had been engaged on behalf of the Majlis could not reach Chaibassa on account of serious disturbance at or near Jamshedpur on the preceding day, though they had left Patna and had reached Jamshedpur on the 20th of March. The court however heard the matter that day and adjourned the case to the 31st March 1964 for orders. The court however heard the matter that day and adjourned the case to the 31st March 1964 for orders. As the orders were not ready on the 31st March, 1964, the case was again adjourned to the 15th April 1964. for orders On the 15th April. 1964 the court passed an order permitting opposite parties 1 to 13 to be added as co-plaintiffs in the proceeding. It is against that order that the present two applications in revision were filed In this court. Unfortunately in the plaint or the petition whatever that was, which was filed by the Majlis before the District Judge, Dhanbad, on 23-12-1958. the provisions of the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 . under which those proceedings were initiated, were not mentioned. From the nature of the reliefs asked for in that plaint, except the first one it appears that it was obviously a proceeding under Sec. 47 of the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 to be referred to hereinafter as the Act. The court fee payable on that plaint was determined, as it appears from the noting made on the back of the first page of the plaint, to be Rs. 15 treating it to be a suit under Sec. 69A of the Act That however, will not determine the question finally. It is the nature of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff Majlis that would determine under which provision of the Act. it came before the District Judge. I have no hesitation, in my mind reading the plaint and, particularly the reliefs mentioned therein that the proceedings were under Sec. 47 of the Act We do not, however, express any opinion whether relief No. 1, stated in that plaint, will be covered by Sec. 47 of the Act. That will be for the District Judge to determine at the time when the case is taken up for final disposal. 3. That will be for the District Judge to determine at the time when the case is taken up for final disposal. 3. Assuming that the Majlis came to the District Judge under Sec. 47 of the Act and the proceedings thereafter were to be conducted according to the provisions of that section and other relevant provisions of the Act there was no room for other people to come and to be added as co-plaintiffs or co-petitioners along with the Majlis Sec. 47 contemplates proceedings to be initiated by the Majlis or any person interested in the waqf who has obtained the previous sanction of the Majlis for removing the mutawalli of any waqf. for appointing a new mutawalli, for vesting any property in a mutawalli for directing accounts and inquiries, or, for granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. The order of the District Judge to be passed in that proceeding shall be final. Opposite parties 1 to 13 had not taken the previous sanction of the Majlis to institute any proceeding under Sec. 47 in regard to the same subject matter. But it was argued by learned Counsel, appearing for them before us that paragraph 10 of the plaint should be taken to have given such sanction generally to all Muslim community at Jamshedpur. That paragraph reads as follows: "That numerous persons are interested in the suit waqf property and it is fit and proper that notice of the institution of the suit by public advertisement under Order 1, Rule 9 C. P. C.. be given." To me it appears that this paragraph cannot be taken to mean that any general sanction was given to an indefinite, unnamed person or persons. What the majlis wanted was to take out a notice for general information of the numerous persons interested in the waqf about the initiation of the proceedings under the Waqfs Act by the Majlis. Strictly speaking, the provisions of Order 1. Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not attracted; but the Majlis, request to the court to issue such a notice would not convert the proceeding to either a regular suit not controlled by the Bihar Waqfs Act or to a suit under Sec. 69-A of that Act. Strictly speaking, the provisions of Order 1. Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not attracted; but the Majlis, request to the court to issue such a notice would not convert the proceeding to either a regular suit not controlled by the Bihar Waqfs Act or to a suit under Sec. 69-A of that Act. Whatever that may be, in answer to the notice which was issued by the court under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure no one did come before the court nor did the opposite parties Nos. 1 to . 13. It cannot be argued on behalf of those opposite parties that they, in answer to that notice, wanted to be impleaded as co-plaintiffs. Their application was much later and independent of that notice. 4. If only the Majlis or any person with the previous sanction of the Majlis can institute a proceeding under Sec. 47 of the Act, then clearly enough, opposite parties 1 to 13 cannot come within those two categories, and therefore, they could not have been allowed to be impleaded as co-plaintiffs 5. Several allegations were made by the opposite parties in their application before the court below and also in their affidavit filed in this court against the Majlis They have alleged that the Majlis has been trying to do something in collusion with defendant No. 2 which would go very much against the trust itself as well as the interest of the Muslim public who are the beneficiaries of that trust. It is not necessary to express any opinion about such allegations and rightly enough the petitioners have not given any detailed refutation of those allegations because those matters are irrelevant for the disposal of the present two applications in civil revision. If the opposite parties have got or will have later any grievance against the Majlis and its activities, it will be open to them to pursue remedies that may be available under the law in properly constituted proceedings; but by making such allegations they will not entitle themselves to be impleaded in the proceeding under Sec. 47 which was already initiated by the Majlis. 6. Learned counsel, appearing for the opposite parties, drew our attention to the case of Faizunnessa Bibi V/s. Gholam Rabbani (1935) 30 Cal WN 961. 6. Learned counsel, appearing for the opposite parties, drew our attention to the case of Faizunnessa Bibi V/s. Gholam Rabbani (1935) 30 Cal WN 961. where It was laid down that IB a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any person who is interested in a public trust may be added as a party without further permission from the authority concerned. Such addition could be made under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable There two relations instituted the suit after taking permission from the Collector. Having lost in the trial court they came up in appeal to the High Court. They did not pay the printing cost as directed by the court in appeal. At that stage on a allegation that they had entered into an unlawful compromise with the opposite party and had not paid the printing cost in order to have the appeal dismissed the applicant wanted the permission of the court to be impleaded as a co-appellant and to proceed with that appeal. Their Lordships granted that permission relying upon the view taken by the Madras and Lahore High Courts in that respect and in contradiction to the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court. It has to be borne in mind Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been repealed so far as trusts created by the Bihar Waqfs Act are concerned. Any suit which was contemplated to be filed under Section 92 of the Code can now be done according to the provisions of the Waqfs Act or the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act. 1950. as the case may be. The Advocate General was not in charge of the management and supervision of the public trusts: but only as a measure of safeguard, his previous permission was required before a suit in regard to a public trust for the specified purpose mentioned in Section 92 could be instituted by a person interested in such a trust Under the Bihar Waqfs Act as well as under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act. 1950, an authority has been created called the Majlis under the Waqfs Act with the prescribed duties in regard to the management & supervision of the public trusts and one of those duties is to institute legal proceedings for specified purposes. 1950, an authority has been created called the Majlis under the Waqfs Act with the prescribed duties in regard to the management & supervision of the public trusts and one of those duties is to institute legal proceedings for specified purposes. As an alternative to the primary duly imposed such Majlis to institute legal proceedings provision has been made under Sec. 47 of the Act by which any person interested in the trust may institute such proceedings, but that can be only with the previous sanction of the Majlis to do so. In view of this Change m the legal position, the view expressed by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in (1996) 30 Cal WN 961 with not apply in full force to a case of the present nature. 7. For the reasons given above, the order of the learned District Judge allowing opposite parties 1 to 13 to be added as co-plaintiffs in the proceeding before him cannot be sustained. The Rule is made absolute. It is to be mentioned with regret that the proceeding have been pending for nearly eight years. A statutory body like the Majlis is expected to be more vigilant to carry out its public duties. If it instituted a proceeding under the Act for the benefit of the trust which indirectly is also for the benefit of the beneficiaries the least that could be expected from it is to prosecute such proceedings with utmost diligence, care and prudence. It is expected that the learned District Judge would see that the case is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. A.B.N.Sinha, J. 8 I agree.