JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Indore in Misc. Civil Case No. 16 of 89 dated 6.11.90. The non-applicants have filed an application under S. 27 of the M.P. Public Trust Act before the lower Court after obtaining the sanction of the Registrar of the Public Trusts registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 16 of 89. A notice was issued inviting objections against the application by the Court. The present applicant is one of the objectors to the application. He made a request before the Court for taking the evidence which was disallowed. Hence, this revision petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that whatever objections have been filed by the present applicant, they have been denied by the non-applicants. Therefore, to verify the authenticity of the averments made it is necessary to record the evidence. Actually the locus standi of the non-applicants have also been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, it is necessary to record the evidence. On perusing the application filed under S. 27 before the lower Court I find that the relief which has been sought by the applicant is that a detailed scheme may be framed and settle a scheme for the due management of Her Highness Maharani Sau. Indira Bai Holkar Trust, Indore with appropriate directions and guidelines. Now, the objection filed by another objector H.N. Jhawar & Co is pertaining to the working of the Trust and legal objections. Another objector Damodar has filed the objection saying that the application has not been filed with the consent of all the Trustees, therefore, it is not tenable. This objection is a legal objection which can be decided by the Court. The locus standi of the applicant has also been challenged, which could also be decided in the light of the legal provisions. Similarly the objection about the non-tenability of the application is a legal objection. An objection about the legality of the order of the Registrar has also been challenged which can also be argued. Therefore, most of the objections are legal objections which can be heard and decided by the Court below. Similarly the objection about the non-tenability of the application is a legal objection. An objection about the legality of the order of the Registrar has also been challenged which can also be argued. Therefore, most of the objections are legal objections which can be heard and decided by the Court below. As regards the valuation of the property if the Court may find it necessary that the property has to be disposed of for the proper management of the Trust and there may be dispute regarding the valuation of the property or the selling of the property being in the interest of the Trust or not, then of course at that stage the Court can hold an enquiry and invite the objectors to lead evidence in support of their contentions. As regards the mismanagement of Trust, in view of the limited question pending before the Court, the objector shall always be free to make a grievance before the Registrar, Public Trusts under S. 26 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act. The lower Court has also made an observation in that behalf and as regards the evidence also it has been said that at this stage the recording of evidence is not necessary. Therefore, in my opinion the order passed by the learned District Judge does not suffer from any such infirmity, which may persuade me to interfere in the order impugned. The revision petition filed by the applicant is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.