Order.- This is a frivolous Revision filed against the Order made by the learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, in M.P. No. 651 of 1958. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration, appointed Sri C.P. Munuswami Naicker, the respondent herein, as the trustee of Sri Kolamuzhiamman Temple, Mylapore, under the order Exhibit P-1, dated 4th August, 1958. The order was passed after enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner before whom the revision petitioners were respondent and they were represented by an advocate. In other words, the order had been passed after hearing both sides. The first revision petitioner, Shanmugha Archagar, filed a Revision Petition No. 68 of 1958 before the Commissioner to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner. This Revision Petition had been dismissed. Vide Exhibit P 2. Thereupon the respondent herein filed an application before the Sixth Presidency Magistrate under section 87 of Madras Act XIX of 1951 for possession of the temple which remained closed for two months on account of the disputations raised by the revision petitioners and thus seriously inconveniencing the public. Two points were raised before the learned Magistrate by the revision petitioners herein, viz., that this is a private temple and secondly that the Assistant Commissioner should have granted a certificate under section 87 of Madras Act XIX of 1951. The learned Magistrate pointed out that under the terms of section 87 he cannot go into the question whether this is a private temple or not and that he was only an executing Court who cannot go behind the order of the Assistant Commissioner and that if the revision petitioners felt aggrieved with the order, their remedies lay elsewhere and secondly, that in the case of delivery of possession of the temple, the Assistant Commissioner issues only an order of appointment of trustee and that a certificate is required only in case of possession of properties belonging to the temple. Therefore, he directed delivery of possession of the temple 1.0 the respondent herein. Hence this Revision. On both the points I am of the same opinion as the learned Magistrate. This Court has laid down in a series of decisions that the powers of a Magistrate under section 87 are neither more nor less than that of an executing Court. He cannot go behind the order or certificates issued by the Commissioner but must take it as it stands. This Court has laid down in a series of decisions that the powers of a Magistrate under section 87 are neither more nor less than that of an executing Court. He cannot go behind the order or certificates issued by the Commissioner but must take it as it stands. He has no power to entertain any objection to the validity, legality or correctness of it, or to the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the order or certificate. He cannot alter, vary or add to its terms even by consent of parties; nor is he entitled to refuse to execute it. The only remedy of an aggrieved party is to file a suit which is specifically excluded from the bar of section 93 of the Act as well as the consequences arising from the second proviso to section 87. An aggrieved party has got to exhaust his remedies before the Assistant Commissioner, and Commissioner and then file a suit. In the case of such a suit the Court could modify or cancel the order; but it has no power to stay the order of the Commissioner pending the disposal of the suit as provided by section 62. The scope of section 87 has been discussed by me in In re Thiruvengada Mudaliar and others1, where I have reviewed the entire case-law on the subject and it is enough to refer to Kinnayyakka v. Naranappayya2, Prattipati Dandiah v. Venkataramana Dikshitulu3, overruling Narasimhacharyulu v. Kotayya4, and subsequently followed in Krishnaswami Ayyangar v. Veeranna Chetty5, Chidambaram Chettiar v. State6, Pubbiri alias Perumal Goundan v. Govinda Mudaliar7, Marudan and others v. Perumal and Suppayyan8 and Dhanalakshmi, In re9. Point 1 rightly failed before the learned Magistrate. Point 2.-The language of section 87 clearly shows that in cases where possession of the temple is asked for, the order of appointment of trustee has to be produced. In the case where possession of temple properties is asked for, the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner has to be produced. The point is concluded by authority. Point 2.-The language of section 87 clearly shows that in cases where possession of the temple is asked for, the order of appointment of trustee has to be produced. In the case where possession of temple properties is asked for, the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner has to be produced. The point is concluded by authority. In Buduran alias Alagiri Boyan,10 Somasundaram, J., has held that when the trustees appointed by the Area Committee seek to claim possession of the institution they need not produce a certificate which they should in cases where they seek to claim possession of the properties belonging to the temple and that it is enough if the order of appointment as Trustee is produced before the Magistrate. In the present case the order appointing the respondent herein as trustee is Exhibit P-1 and prayer in the petition was only for delivery of possession of the temple. Point 2 rightly failed before the learned Magistrate. This hopeless Revision is summarily dismissed as totally devoid of substance. P.R.N. ----- Appeal dismissed.