JUDGMENT - Ginwala A.A., J.: - In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties in this case it is necessary to briefly state the facts which led to the present revision application. 2. Non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 had applied to the Charity Commissioner under section 50 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to settle a scheme in respect of a public trust registered under that Act in the name of Kagzipura Panch Bangla, Akola of which applicant No. 1 was said to be a managing trustee and applicant No.2 as a trustee. A draft scheme was annexed to this application. The Deputy Charity Commissioner by his order passed on 31st August, 1974 settled the scheme in terms of the scheme annexed to this order. The present applicants moved the District Court under section 72 of the Act to set aside the decision of the Deputy Charity Commissioner. This application was heard by the Joint Judge who, by his order passed on 29th November, 1976, instead of setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, as prayed for by the applicants, modified the scheme by altering certain clauses in it and inserting one more clause as Clause 31, which is in the following terms: “31. The present trustees, i.e. Abdul Aziz Sk. Ismail and Sk. Kasam Sk. Ismail shall hand over the charge of the trust affairs and account books and other material documents, the trust property, moveable as well as immoveable, to the Board of Trustees named in rule 3 on or before 10-12-1976.” It may be mentioned here that under the scheme finalised by the Joint Judge the present two applicants, non-applicant No. 1 and two other persons are appointed as the first trustees under the said scheme by virtue of Clause 3 thereof. Thus the effect of Clause 31 of the scheme as settled by the Joint Judge would be that the present two applicants who are also two of the members of the Board of Trustees had to hand over the charge of the trust with the account books and moveable and immoveable property etc. to the said Board of Trustees on or before 10th December 1976. to the said Board of Trustees on or before 10th December 1976. The applicants failed to do so and hence Mohammad Usman, who is one of the members of the Board of Trustees, filed an application in the District Court on 28th December, 1976 for obtaining possession of the moveable and immoveable property of the trust along with account books and other documents from the present two applicants as directed under Clause 31 of the Scheme. This application is in the form of execution petition and it has been registered as Execution Case No.1 of 1976. The applicants appeared in the said execution proceedings and objected to the District Court entertaining the execution proceeding. According to them the authority competent to execute the scheme is the Charity Commissioner and hence the execution application filed in the Court was not tenable. The learned Joint Judge heard the parties on the question of tenability of the execution proceeding and by his order passed on. 25th January, 1977, he held that it was competent for the District Court to entertain the application for execution of that part of the scheme which was executable. According to him, the part of the scheme which was sought to be executed, viz., Clause 31, was executable as a decree by virtue of sub-section(4) of section-50A of the Act and it was in this view that he held that the execution proceeding was tenable in the Court. In this view of the matter the learned Joint Judge directed the execution to proceed and a warrant to be issued against the present applicants for possession of the moveable and immovable property of the trust. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. 3. The point, therefore, which arises for consideration in this revision application is whether the District Court is competent to execute the executable part of a scherpe which has been settled by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A of the Act. 4. In order to decide this question it would be convenient to go a little in the past in the law governing the settlement of schemes with regard to public trusts. Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 made a provision for settlement d a scheme for the management of a public trust created for public charitable or religious purpose. That section was in the following terms: “539. Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 made a provision for settlement d a scheme for the management of a public trust created for public charitable or religious purpose. That section was in the following terms: “539. In case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trusts created for public charitable or religious purposes, or whenever the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General acting ex officio, or two or more persons having a direct interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate General, may institute a suit in the High Court or the District Court within the local limits of whose civil jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree- (a) appointing new trustees under the trust, (b) vesting any property in the trustees under the trust; (c) declaring the proportions in which its objects are entitled; (d) authorizing the whole or any part of its property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged; (e) settling a scheme for its management; or granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. The powers conferred by this section on the Advocate General may, outside the Presidency-towns be, with the previous sanction of the Local Government, exercised also by the Collector or by such officer as the Local Government may appoint in this behalf, Act No. X of 1840, section two, is hereby repealed.” This provision came to be repeated in the Code of Civil- Procedure, 1908 as sub section(1) of section 92 thereof and it is in the following terms: “92.(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree- (a) removing any trustee; (b) appointing a new trustee; (c) vesting any property in a trustee; . (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; (d) directing accounts and inquiries; (e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust; (f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged; (g) settling a scheme, or “ (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.” Sub-sections(2) and (3) of section 92 are not relevant for purpose. It would appear that with a little variation sub-section(1) of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is in pari-materia with the provision contained in section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. The application of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to public trusts governed by the Act is excluded by section 52 of the Act. The application of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to public trusts governed by the Act is excluded by section 52 of the Act. Now under section 50 the Charity Commissioner or two or more persons with his consent can institute a suit in the competent Court to obtain a decree for settlement of a scheme or variations or alterations in a scheme already settled. In other words, if the Charity Commissioner feels that it is necessary that a scheme for a public trust should be settled or that an existing scheme should be varied or altered, he or two or more persons with his consent can file a suit in Court and obtain a decree for that purpose. It may be mentioned here that the word “Court” has been defined in sub section(4) of section 1 of the Act to mean, the City Civil Court in Greater Bombay and the District Court elsewhere. It would, therefore, appear that under section 50 of the Act it is open to the Charity Commissioner to file a suit in the District Court for settlement of a scheme or variations or alterations in a scheme already settled with regard to public trusts governed by the provisions of the Act. It would be clear that section 50 did not invest or empower the Charity Commissioner to settle a scheme by himself or to vary, alter or modify an existing scheme. It is obvious that if a suit is filed by the Charity Commissioner or for the matter of that two or more persons with his consent in the District Court, it would end in a decree after a trial as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. It is obvious that if a suit is filed by the Charity Commissioner or for the matter of that two or more persons with his consent in the District Court, it would end in a decree after a trial as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Section 50A was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1960 and it is in the following terms :- “5OA.(1) Notwithstanding anything, contained in section 50, where the Charity Commissioner has reason to believe that, in the interest of the proper management or administration of a public trust, a scheme should be settled for it or where two or more persons having interest in a public trust make an application to him in writing in the prescribed manner that, in the interest of the proper management or administration of a public trust, a scheme should be settled for it, the Charity Commissioner may, if, after giving the trustees of such trust due opportunity to be beard, he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do frame a scheme for the management or administration of such public trust. (2) Where the Charity Commissioner is of opinion that in the interest of the proper management or administration, two or more public trusts may be amalgamated by framing a common Scheme for the same, he may, after- (a) publishing a notice in the Official Gazette and also if necessary in any news paper which in the opinion of the Charity Commissioner is best Calculated to bring to the notice of persons likely to be interested in the trust with a wide circulation in the region in which the trust is registered, and (b) give the trustees of such trusts, and all other interested persons due opportunity to be heard frame a common scheme for the same. (3) The Charity Commissioner may, at any time, alter hearing tile trustees modify the scheme framed by him under sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) (4) The scheme framed under sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) or modified under sub-section(3) shall, subject to the decision of the competent Court under section 72, have effect as a scheme settled or altered, as the case may be, under a decree of a Court under section 50.” It would appear that after the insertion of this section in the Act the Charity Commissioner has acquired power to frame a scheme for the management of administration of a public trust or to modify the scheme framed by him under sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) thereof. Hence, after the enactment of section 50A, the Charity Commissioner has two alternatives before him, if be wants to settle or frame a scheme in respect of a given public trust. He can either file a suit in the District Court as provided for by section 50 or he may do it himself under section 50A. 6. It is now well settled that a direction contained in a scheme which is framed or settled by a decree passed under section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 or section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be enforced in execution upon application by a person interested. See (Damodhar bhat v. Bhogial)l I.L.R. 24 Rom. 45., ( Prayag Dass Ji v. Tirumala)2 I.L.R. 28 Mad. 319, (M. Varadiah v. K. Narasinhula )3 I.L.R. 54 Mad. 345, (Board of Control), (Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthan v. BaJayee Amma)4 A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 61, (Ramu v. Puna)5 A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 326 and (B. Saitendra Nath v. Shih Dass)6 A.I.R. 1944 Oudh 289. The same principle would apply to a decree passed by the District Court under section 50 of the Act in other words, a decree passed by the District Court under which it settles a scheme could be declaratory in part and could be directive .in part and since the directive portion is under a decree, it could be executed by the Court in execution proceedings. Thus if the Court passes a decree under section 50 of the Act, settling a scheme and such a scheme contains a direction to the trustees or any other person to do a certain thing, such direction can be enforced by executing that decree. Thus if the Court passes a decree under section 50 of the Act, settling a scheme and such a scheme contains a direction to the trustees or any other person to do a certain thing, such direction can be enforced by executing that decree. The difficulty would, however, arise in respect of the scheme which would be framed or settled by the Charity commissioner under section 50A. Since the Charity Commissioner is not a Court, the scheme settled by him would not be under any decree and if it contains a directive, it would not be possible to execute the same as can be done with regard to a scheme containing such a direction settled by a Court under a decree under section 50 of the Act. It was because of this difficulty and the distinction which existed between a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A and a scheme settled by the Court under a decree passed under section 50 of the Act that the Legislature had to consider the question of the execution of the directive part of such a scheme and it was for this purpose that sub-section(4) of section 50A was enacted. Now this sub-section, as would appear, puts the scheme framed under section 50A on par with a scheme settled under a decree of the Court under section 50, and because it says that such a scheme shall have the same effect as a scheme settled under section 50. When the Legislature says that the scheme framed under section 50A would have the same effect as the scheme settled under a decree of the court under section 50 it clearly means to intend to treat the scheme under section 50A and the scheme settled under the decree to be on equal footing in all respects, be use the Legislature has given the former the effect of the latter, and if this is so, the scheme framed under section 50A would be for all practical purposes equivalent to a scheme settled under the decree of a Court under section 50. It is obvious that the legislature has chosen to do so in order to see that executable part of a scheme settled under section 58A could he executed through the agency of the Court, as there is no provision in the Act itself under which such a part of the scheme could be executed and enforced. 7. Mr. Khan, the learned counsel for the applicants, has drawn my attention to certain provisions of the Act in support of his contention that there are provisions in the Act itself under which the Charity Commissioner could enforce or execute the executable part of the scheme framed by him In this connection he has referred me to Sections 41A, 41D, 41E and 47. Persul of these sections would at once indicate that none of them gives power to the Charity Commissioner to execute the executable part of a scheme framed. by him under section 50. Section 41A gives power to the. Charity Commissioner to issue directions to any trustee of a public trust of any person concurred therewith, to ensure that the trust is properly administered and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied to the objects and for the purposes of the trust. Sub-section(2) of that section says that it would be the duty of every trustee or of such person to comply with the directions issued under sub section(1) thereof. Now it is abundantly clear that this section cannot be pressed into service by the Charity Commissioner to enforce the executable part of the scheme, because he can exercise the power under this section only to ensure that the trust is properly administered and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied to the object for which the trust is created. An executable Part of the scheme may not necessarily have bearing on the administration of the trust as such and hence the Charity Commissioner would not be in a position to exercise his power under section 41A for that purpose. 8. Sub-section(l) of section 41D empowers the Charity Commissioner to suspend, remove or dismiss a trustee if he inter alia wilfully disobeys any lawful orders issued by the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. Mr. 8. Sub-section(l) of section 41D empowers the Charity Commissioner to suspend, remove or dismiss a trustee if he inter alia wilfully disobeys any lawful orders issued by the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. Mr. Khan has led great stress on this provision and he submits that if a trustee disobeys a direction contained in a scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner, the latter can, in exercise of his power under this sub section, suspend, remove or dismiss him. That may be so, but this would not amount to executing the directive part of the scheme. As, for example, in the present case the applicants have been directed to hand over charge of the moveable and immoveable property of the trust to the Board of Trustees by a particular date. Now if the applicants have not carried out this direction assuming that this is a direction issued by the Charity Commissioner, or is an order passed by him under the Act, the only penalty which the Charity Commissioner can impose on the applicants as trustees would be to suspend, remove or dismiss them, but that would not mean that the directive in the scheme has been carried out, because the question of handing over the charge of the property of the trust would stili remain even if the applicants are suspended, removed or dismissed as trustees obviously, therefore, section 41D would be of no avail to the Charity Commission to carry out the directive contained in a scheme framed by him. 9. Section 41E on the face of it cannot apply to such a situation as it is intended for preservation and protection of the properties of trusts this provision is more or less akin to the provisions contained in rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure under which an injunction canbe issued. 10. Section 47 again has no application on the face of it. That section, as can be easily seen, relates to the appointment of a new trustee where there is no trustee or the trust cannot be administered until the vacancy is filled in. It also provides for the openion, removal or discharge of the trustee in certain contingencies stated therein. Obviously, therefore, this section could also not empower the Charity Commissioner to enforce the directive portion of a scheme framed by him. . 11. It also provides for the openion, removal or discharge of the trustee in certain contingencies stated therein. Obviously, therefore, this section could also not empower the Charity Commissioner to enforce the directive portion of a scheme framed by him. . 11. It would, therefore, appear that there is no provision, as stated above, in the Act under which the directive portion of the scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner can be executed or enforced. Certainly the Legislature would not leave this in a vacuum and leave the parties concerned without any remedy and it is precisely for this reason that a provision has been made in sub-section(4) of section 50A by placing such a scheme on par with the scheme settled under a decree of a Court under section 50. In my opinion, therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the District Court has the power to execute the directive portion of a scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A. . 12. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Khan also submitted that even if it is assumed that the scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A has to be treated as a scheme framed under a decree under section 50 by virtue of sub-section(4) of section 50A, such a decree would have to be executed, as be puts it, by the Court of first instance on the analogy of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Now for the moment it may be assumed that Charity Commissioner, when he framed a scheme under section 50A, is a Court of first instance or to use the phraseology or section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court which passed the decree. But that by itself would not solve the problem as the Act itself does not make any provision any where for execution of such an order or a scheme by the Charity Commissioner. 13. In this view of the matter, therefore, it cannot be said that the Court below had erred in holding that it had power to execute the executable part of the scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner. In these circumstances, therefore, there is no merit in this revision application and it stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed -----