( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause courts Act, 1964, against the judgment and decree in S C. No. 3 of 73 on the file of the Munsiff, Raichur (II Court ). The petitioner', Shaik Ali, filed the aforementioned suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 252-75 ps. from the defendant in his capacity as the President of Kottalar Masjid Committee, Raichur. The defendant inter alia, resisted the claim on the ground that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff Masjid Committee had not obtained the permission of the Advocate general of Karnataka under S. 92 (1) (cc), CPC. before instituting the suit. S. 92 (1) (cc) reads as follows; 92 (1) (cc ).-directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property. ( 2 ) IT was never the case of the defendant that the suit was brought against mm in his capacity as former trustee. The suit instituted was one for the recovery of money advanced by the Committee to the defendant for the purchase of a cycle for his use when he was a paish imam of the Masjid. On the facts of the case stated above, the question of this case attracting section 92 (1) (cc) of the C P C. does not arise at all. ( 3 ) THIS Court has held in the case of Amir Bi v. Committee of Management of neelasandra Mosque (1)that a suit by a mosque to recover possession of the property dedicated to the mosque from the person in occupation does not require to be instituted with the sanction of the Advocate General under section 92 CPC. ( 4 ) IN this case, as already pointed out, there is no question of attracting Sub-sec. (I) (cc) of section 92 CPC. The learned Small Cause Judge in the instant case, was merely carried away by the force of the contentions made on behalf of the respondent-defendant Syed Asadullah Hussaini without applying his mind properly to the provisions of law as well as the facts of the case. In the result, the order of the learned Small Cause Judge, Raichur is clearly erroneous and is liable to be set aside as illegal. In the result, the order of the learned Small Cause Judge, Raichur is clearly erroneous and is liable to be set aside as illegal. It is so set aside. Now the learned munsiff (II Court) Raichur, will proceed with the case S. C. No. 3 of 1973 taking it back on his file and try the same on merits without reference to section 92 (1) (cc) CPC. ( 5 ) THOUGH this case was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the respondent, when the matter came up for hearing, he did not appear. For this, respondent is liable to pay costs of this petition. Advocate's fee Rs. 25. 00. --- *** --- .