JUDGMENT K. J. Shetty, C.J. 1. This revision raises the question as to the scope and object of Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The matter has been referred by the learned Single Judge (Mr. A. N. Varma, J.) differing with the view taken by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1320 of 1974. 2. The facts are these : Smt. Bhagwati Devi, respondent, is a Managing Trustee of the temples, one of Mahadeoji, and, the other of Shri Dauji Swami. Both the temples are situated in the town of Bhongaon, District Mainpuri. In 1973, Trilok Chandra, petitioner wanted that there should be a Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the temple. He moved the District Judge, Mainpuri under Section 7 of the Act for an order to appoint him and others as Sarvarakars. On May 28, 1973 the District Judge made an order accepting his request. On coming to know of the said order, Smt. Bhagwati Devi filed an application under Section 151, CPC for recalling the order since she was not heard in the matter. The District Judge after hearing the parties passed the following order :- "Taking all these facts into consideration, the order dated 28-5-1973 is set aside and the application of Trilok Chandra under section 7 of the Act is rejected." Challenging the legality of the said order, Trilok Chandra preferred revision petition no. 1320 of 1974 in this court. The only question that arose for consideration in the revision petition was whether the District Judge was justified in cancelling his earlier order of appointing the Committee of ManageNo.1.ment of the Trust. Hari Swarup, J. before whom the revision came for disposal held that the order of the District Judge dated May 28, 1973 was an order without jurisdiction and if the illegal order was set aside by another order, the latter order could not be set aside to restore the earlier order. In support of this conclusion, learned judge also made the following observations :- "The power under section 7 clearly is a summary power for resolving difficulties in the management of the trust. In support of this conclusion, learned judge also made the following observations :- "The power under section 7 clearly is a summary power for resolving difficulties in the management of the trust. It does not give the court any power to appoint the committee of management." In other words, learned Judge was of opinion that section 7 of the Act did not confer jurisdiction on the court to appoint a Committee of management, since the procedure thereunder is purely summary. 3. The position thus continued for all these years with Smt. Bhagwati Devi remaining as the sole Trustee of the temple. She now appears to have become old. She has felt the need of some assistance from others to manage the affairs of the trust. So she made an application under section 7 to appoint some persons (named by her) as a committee of management. Trilok Chandra again came to the picture. He opposed the application of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. But the learned District Judge dismissed his objection. He held that Trilok Chandra had filed an earlier application for appointment of himself as Sarvarakar and since it had already been dismissed, he has now no right in the matter. The request of Smt. Bhagwati Devi was allowed appointing a Committee of Management to assist her in the management of the Trust. The said order has been assailed by Trilok Chandra in this civil revision. 4. When the matter came for consideration before learned Single Judge, the earlier decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1320 of 1974 was cited in support of the contention that section 7 of the Act does not authorise the Court to appoint Committee of Management to manage the Trust. The learned Single Judge found it difficult to share that view. He has accordingly referred the matter to a larger Bench. Counsel for the petitioner urged that section 7 confers only advisory jurisdiction on the Court. The Court is required to dispose of matters in a summary way. In the exercise of such a limited jurisdiction, a Committee of Management of the trust cannot be appointed. For the respondents it was urged that section 7 imposes no such restriction. All matters which could be conveniently disposed of by summary procedure fall within the scope of section 7. It was also urged that the impugned order does not fall outside such categories. 5. For the respondents it was urged that section 7 imposes no such restriction. All matters which could be conveniently disposed of by summary procedure fall within the scope of section 7. It was also urged that the impugned order does not fall outside such categories. 5. In our opinion the contention urged for the respondents appears to be sound and must be accepted as correct. Section 7 of the Act so far as it is relevant provides:- " 7. Power of Trustee to Apply for Directions : (i) Save as hereinafter provided in this Act, any trustee of an express or constructive trust created or existing for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature may apply by petition to the Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any substantial part of the subject matter of the trust is situate, for the opinion, advice or direction of the Court on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property, and the Court shall give its opinion, advice or direction, as the case may be, thereon : Provided that the Court shall not be bound to give such opinion, advice or direction on any question which it considers to be a question not proper for summary disposal. (2) The Court on a petition under sub-section (1), may either give its opinion, advice or direction thereon forthwith, or fix a date for the hearing of the petition, and may direct a copy thereof, together with notice of the date so fixed, to be served on such of the persons interested in the trust, or to be published for information in such manner, as it thinks fit. (3)......... (4) ........ If one peruses the above provisions, it would be clear that the section itself furnishes enough guidelines as to the nature of the relief to be granted. The Court is required to follow the summary procedure. The Court may give any opinion, advice or direction on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property. The Court could, however, refuse to give any opinion, advice or direction if it is of opinion that the question before it can not properly be considered in the summary procedure. All that section provides is that the court is not bound to give such opinion, advice or direction on any question which is not proper for summary disposal. The Court could, however, refuse to give any opinion, advice or direction if it is of opinion that the question before it can not properly be considered in the summary procedure. All that section provides is that the court is not bound to give such opinion, advice or direction on any question which is not proper for summary disposal. In other words, the section does not expressly prohibit the court to give any opinion, advice or direction. The Court, however, will be well advised not to adjudicate serious questions of dispute which require evidence in detail. There is no other restraint on the court to give any opinion, advice or direction on any question affecting the management or administration of the Trust. 6. Each case coming before the court will have to be considered on its own merits. The jurisdiction to grant relief under section 7 of the Act has been conferred on the Court presided over by no less than a District Judge. It would not be difficult for the District Judge to consider with his vast experience whether a matter requires a deep probe involving investigation of disputed questions of fact or law, or it is a matter which could be conveniently disposed of without much difficulty. If the case is of the former type, the Court would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. If the case is of the latter type, the Court would give relief to the party. There is no other inhibition on the court to exercise the power under section 7 of the Act. In the light of this enunciation, we cannot but hold that the view taken by Hari Swarup, J. in Civil Revision No. 1320 of 1974 has not laid down the correct law and it stands over-ruled. 7. Our view finds support also from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sukhlal Chandanmull Karnani Trust v. Shew Kumar Karnani, AIR 1973 Cal. 444 and also from the decision of the Kerala High Court in Avach Thavar v. Chummar, AIR 1957 Kerala 171 at page 172. In the latter case, it has been observed at page 172 :- "The next question is as to the scope of the jurisdiction of the court under the Section and whether the court below has acted in excess. The Section it is clear, grants liberty to a trustee to get the direction, advice etc. In the latter case, it has been observed at page 172 :- "The next question is as to the scope of the jurisdiction of the court under the Section and whether the court below has acted in excess. The Section it is clear, grants liberty to a trustee to get the direction, advice etc. of the Court regarding the management or administration of the trust property. The court under the section exercises what might be called its consultative jurisdiction, giving guidance to the trustee. The court is not, however, to grant sanction merely because it is applied for. The limitation is that the court will refuse to consider the matter if in its opinion the question is one not capable of summary disposal e. g. if it is one of detail or difficulty." The Delhi High Court in Dr. Man Singh, AIR 1974 Delhi 228 has also taken the similar view. 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it would be seen that Smt. Bhagwati Devi has been the undisputed Trustee managing the temples in question ever since the death of her husband. Trilok Chandra was held to have no right to manage the affairs of the trust. Smt. Bhagwati Devi has approached the court