JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1 Udaipur granting permission to non-petitioner No. 2 Trust to sell a property belonging to the trust. The petitioner Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan Deptt., Udaipur has raised two contentions. The first is that under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 no property belonging to trust can be sold without obtaining prior permission from the Asstt. Commissioner Devasthan. The second contention is that in - an earlier litigation this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 26/1980 arising from the same suit had imposed conditions for appointment of receiver and condition No. 5 was that parties shall not transfer the properties of the trust without permission from the High Court, and, therefore, the learned Addl. Distt. Judge could not have granted the permission and permission for sale of the property should have been sought from this High Court. 2. So far as the first contention is concerned, the learned Addl. Distt. Judge has dealt with it in paragraph 8 of his order. He observed that the permission under Section 31 is not required when the instrument itself provides that the trustees could sell the property. It is an admitted fact that the deed of trust grant such permission to the trustees. Section 31 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, therefore, would not have any application. I find that the view taken by the trial Court is correct on this point. 3. So far as the directions of the High Court are concerned, in the revision memo itself the relevant orders are reproduced. After the interim order dated 23.9.1989 was passed the appeal itself was disposed of on 11.2.1988 and it was observed by the Court that if the parties to the application wish to seek any modification, alteration, change or variation in the conditions and directions given by this Court in the interim order it would be open to them to seek such modification, change, alteration or variation from the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Udaipur. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that condition No. 5 was relating to sale of the trust property and asking for permission to sell does not amount to seeking modification, change, alteration and variation in the conditions imposed by the interim order of this Court. Sh. District Judge No. 1, Udaipur. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that condition No. 5 was relating to sale of the trust property and asking for permission to sell does not amount to seeking modification, change, alteration and variation in the conditions imposed by the interim order of this Court. Sh. Mehta on the other hand contends that when the final order delegated the powers of making any modification, change, alteration and variation in the conditions imposed by the interim order, granting permission to sell under the condition No. 5 was also delegated to ADJ No. 1, Udaipur. I am of the view that this Court being conscious of the fact that it would become functus-officio after deciding the appeal gave directions for continuation of the conditions imposed by it in the interim order and left the modification, change, alteration and variation of such conditions to the discretion of Addl. District Judge No. 1, Udaipur who would be still seized of the matter as the trial Court. Both the interim and the final orders read together what therefore, clearly mean that the power to permit the sale of trust property which was prohibited by the Court by imposing a condition in the interim order appointing receiver was also given to the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1 by this Court while disposing of the appeal. On both counts, therefore, I find no force in this revision petition. Moreover, Sh. Mehta learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 informs that as no stay order has been obtained from this Court by the petitioner, in the meanwhile the property has already been sold under the permission of the Court. It is also a circumstances for not interfering with the order passed by the trial Court.For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******