Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 26-4-95, whereby and whereunder the learned Subordinate judge, Khagaria, rejected the prayer of the defendant petitioner to reject the plaint of the plaintiff-opposite party on the ground that the present suit, which has been filed under Sec.92 of the civil Procedure Code is not maintainable 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present suit was filed under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for the relief relating to religious trust, which is covered by Special Act namely, the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 and under sub-section (5) of Sec.4 of the Religious Endowment Act, 1863 the application of the provisions contained in Sec.92 of the Code has been excluded with respect to any religious tiust in this State As such, according to him, the suit under Section 92 of the Code is not maintainable 3. Mr Singh, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parly No.2 submitted that there is no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner According to him, the power to consider the dispute raised in the suit is vested in the District Judge under Sec.49 of the Special Act it self It may be true that the suit filed under Sec.92 may not be main tamable, but since the power to decide the dispute involved in the suit on an application filed by any person interested in a religious trust is there under section 48 the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the civil revision from this court 4. In reply, Mr Bhupendra Naram sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case Sec.48 is also of no help to the opposite-party as it is not the case of the plaintiff that they filed it after ob taming previous sanction of the Board 5. In reply, Mr Bhupendra Naram sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case Sec.48 is also of no help to the opposite-party as it is not the case of the plaintiff that they filed it after ob taming previous sanction of the Board 5. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner It may be true that in view ot the provisions contained m sub-section (5) of Sec.4 of the Endowment Act, the suit under Sec.92 is barred, but by now it is well settled that where power exists the mere fact that it purports to have been exercised under a wrong provision of law does not affect the validity of the power if its efficiency A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Jammu University v dk Rampal, AIR 1977 SC 1146 and h L Mehra v Union of India and Ors , 1974 SCC 396 6. I do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no previous sanction of the Board was obtained by the plaintiff-opposite paity before filing of the present case This point was neither raised in the court below nor has been specifically raised in this court under such circumstances, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of sanction of the Board, the present case in the court below will not be maintainable under Sec.48 of the Special Act The District Judge is defined in sub-clause (c) of Sec.2 of the Act According to the said definition, the District Judge includes the subordinate Judge specially empowered to exercise the power by the State government to discharge the duty of the District Judge It is not the case of the petitioner that no power has been vested in the Subordinate Judge, who has passed the impugned order Under such circumstances, I find it difficult to hold that the matter before the Subordinate judge is not maintainable However, the suit filed in the present form cannot proceed and as such this civil revision application is disposed of with the direction to the court below to treat it under Sec.48 and permit the plaintiff to make necessary amendment in the provision of law as well as m the cause title within three weeks, whereafter the said application may be finally registered under Sec.48 of the Special Act 7. The application is accordingly disposed of However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise any objection with respect to maintainability of the said application with respect to the requirement provided under Sec.48 having not been complied with order Accordingly