JUDGEMENT Mihir Kr.Jha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1530 of 2008 and Mr. S.K. Mazoomdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1827 of 2008. 2. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 5539 of 2008 in Civil Revision No. 1530 of 2008 the delay in filing of the aforesaid Civil Revision Application is condoned. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, it appears that the dispute in hand is confined to the right of managing and controlling the affairs and property of an old public religious trust namely Baba Bhikham Das Thakurbari, Bari Path, Kadam Kuan, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Thakurbari). As is well known that dispute in such public religious trust emanate and thrive basically for controlling the properties of the, Trust. Here also it is the huge trust property in the heart of town of Patna valuing several crores of Rupees, which has led to a continuing ongoing legal battle with inglorious past and uncertain future which has in process also doomed its present. 4. It would thus be necessary for this Court to note certain events which had taken place both prior to and after the date of 11th April, 2007, which for (sicmore ?) than one reason had became a fateful day when this court had issued certain directions for management of the property of the said trust including the Thakurbari. 5. All that in this regard has to be noticed is that ever since 1952 there has been ongoing a marathon race for the coveted post of Mahanth and managing the property of the trust including its Thakurbari in the city of Patna. It is said that a Will dated 21.12.1952 executed by the then Mahanth Ram Krishna Das in favour of Ram Rajeshwar Das marked the beginning of the dispute because it was this Will and a subsequent Will of the year 1960 authored by the same person namely Mahanth Ram Krishna Das in favour of one Chandramani Das which led to the dispute for the office of the Mahanth of the said Thakurbari. When Mahanth Ram Krishna Das had died in 1961, Ram Rajeshwar Das in fact had filed a succession case in 1961 being Succession Case No. 188 of 1961 on the basis of Will dated 21.12.1952 and thereafter in 1963 Chandramani Das had filed a Letter of Administration case on the basis Will of the year 1960. The aforesaid Letters of Administration case on the contest of Ram Rajeshwar Das was converted into a Title Suit No. 22 of 1966 and the trial court by its two separate judgments dated 28.5.1977 had allowed succession case in favour of Ram Rajeshwar Das while Title suit filed by Chandramani Das was dismissed. 6. The order passed in Succession case in favour of Ram Rajeshwar Das became final, inasmuch as, a Civil Revision filed by Chandramani Das was dismissed. That, however, was not the end of the dispute because Chandramani Das immediately thereafter filed a Title Suit No. 225 of 1978 with regard to claim to the office of the Mahanth on the basis of the Will of the year 1960. It is found that an order of injunction was also passed in that Title Suit No. 225 of 1978 in the year 1979, which again was assailed by Ram Rajeshwar Das by filing a Miscellaneous Appeal and the same was tagged alongwith First Appeal No. 500 of 1977 which was filed by him against the decree in Title Suit No. 22 of 1966. The First Appeal and the aforementioned miscellaneous appeal were disposed of by this Court by order dated 11.11.1998 reported in 1999(1) PLJR 443 and while first appeal was dismissed, the miscellaneous appeal was allowed setting aside the aforesaid order of injunction. The resultant attempt before the Supreme Court at the instance of Chandramani Das failed and it can thus be safely said that in that round of litigation Ram Rajeshwar Das was found to be Mahanth on the basis of Will executed by the admitted Mahanth Ram Krishna Das, Ram Rajeshwar Das had thereafter filed an execution case now for executing the order dated 28.5.1977 in his favour which as noticed above was passed in a Succession case. 7. While execution case was pending Ram Rajeshwar Das, the decree holder, died on 1.1.2003 and Mahanth Rama Kant Das claiming to be his Chela had filed an application for his being substituted. 7. While execution case was pending Ram Rajeshwar Das, the decree holder, died on 1.1.2003 and Mahanth Rama Kant Das claiming to be his Chela had filed an application for his being substituted. This was opposed by BimaI Das, Jai Narain Das and Sarvesh Das, who by now also came into picture on account of death of the judgment-debtor Chandramani Das, who is said to have died on 15.12.2004. This dispute was pending before the Executing Court as to who would be substituted in place of decree holder Ram Rajeshwar Das. It is however significant to note here that Ramakant Das in the execution case on one hand had claimed to be the only chela of Ram Rajeshwar Das but on the other hand he himself had filed a probate case being Probate Case No. 65 of 2003 for being declared successor of Ram Rajeshwar Das on the strength of a Will. This was however opposed in another probate case filed by another Chela Jai Narain Das being Probate Case No. 46 of 2005 on the basis of another Will of Ram Rajeshwar Das. At the same time Ramakant Das some time in 2006 had also filed an application before the Board for being declared as a Mahanth of the Thakurbari and on this application the Board by order dated 8.12.2006 had fixed the matter for hearing. It is on the record that when hearing had commenced all the parties claiming to be Mahanth of Thakurbari i.e, Bimal Das, Jai Narain Das, Sarvesh Das as also Rama Kant Das took a plea before the Board that a miscellaneous appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 205 of 2001 was pending before this Court which had arisen out of the order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Patna in Misc. Case No. 56/1997 affirming the order of Board dated 15.7.1996 appointing Ram Rajeshwar Das as a trustee (Mahanth). The Board therefore had also awaited for disposal of the said miscellaneous appeal, and that is how this miscellaneous appeal has become watershed and turning point for the entire dispute. 8. It must be recapitulated at this stage that in the miscellaneous appeal filed by one Mahanth Sarvesh, he had assailed the order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Patna dismissing the Misc. 8. It must be recapitulated at this stage that in the miscellaneous appeal filed by one Mahanth Sarvesh, he had assailed the order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Patna dismissing the Misc. Case No. 56 of 1997, filed by the original appellant Mahanth Chandramani Das affirming the order dated 15.7.1996 passed by the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious Trust by which Chandramani Das was removed from the post of Trustee of the Trust in question in terms of Section 22(h)(iii) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the said miscellaneous appeal Ram Rajeshwar Das was made respondent no. 4 in whose favour Board has passed an order dated 15.7.1996 appointing him as a trustee of the Thakurbari. 9. This Court in its judgment dated 11th April, 2007 while going into all possible facets and aspects of the dispute as noticed above had held as follows: "12. It is not disputed that there was a contest between the original appellant and the original respondent no. 4 as to the right to act as Trustee of the Trust and there was serious allegations of interference with the management and also serious allegations for mismanagement of the property of the Trust. It is also not in dispute that both the original claimants, namely, the original appellant and original respondent no. 4 have died and there is a vacancy existing in the office of the trustee of the Trust. It also does not remain in dispute that the condition of the once flourishing Math throbbing with healthy religious activities, rites and rituals and thronged by thousands of devotees has not even remained a shadow of its original self-devoid of any such activity or devotee and even the properties of the Trust having deteriorated immensely due to the self-aggrandizing attitude of the claimant Trustees and their long litigation spanning more than forty five yeas, which is being followed by their respective alleged Chelas." "13. Considering the provisions of law, the facts of the case mentioned above, as well as the condition of the Trust and also realizing the illegalities in the earlier order of the Board as well as in the impugned order of the learned court below, this Court hereby sets aside the impugned order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Patna in Misc. Case (Religious Trust Board) No. 56 of 1997 as well as the order of the Board dated 15.7.1996, which was under challenge in the aforesaid MiscelIaneous Case. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed with a direction to the Board (respondent no. 1) to appoint a competent person in terms of Section 33(1) of the Act to act as the trustee of the Trust in question within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order for a period of one year unless the dispute is decided by a competent court or authority within that period and if the dispute is not decided by the said Court/Authority within the said period of one year the Board shall settle a scheme for proper administration of the Trust under Section 32 of the Act, which will be subject to any subsequent order of a competent Court, in accordance with Section 33(3) of the Act." 10. As a matter of fact while directing the Board to appoint a competent person as a trustee this Court had also set out the reasons for such a direction to the Board, which read as follows: "14. Before parting with this judgment, it will be necessary to mention here that this Court expects that the Board as well as its Administrator Mr. Kishore Kunal, who is personally present in this Court, will not only bring the Math in question to its lost glory of healthy religious activities, rites and rituals, but will also see that the Math is developed into an ideal place of worship for the actual beneficiaries, namely its devotees and that its properties and income are being used for the real purposes of such a trust, namely, service to the humanity, which the Board under its above named Administrator have done in similar trusts of Bihar in the recent past." 11. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order of this Court dated 11.4.2007 was immediately complied by the Board which had appointed Hon ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, a retired Judge of this Court, as the sole trustee by order dated 25.4.2007. There is also no dispute that on or after 25.4.2007 the said trustee, the Hon ble Mr. Justice Sinha had taken charge of the affairs of the Trust and its Thakurbari and was managing the affairs by not only making arrangement of regular Pujapath, Rajbhog etc. There is also no dispute that on or after 25.4.2007 the said trustee, the Hon ble Mr. Justice Sinha had taken charge of the affairs of the Trust and its Thakurbari and was managing the affairs by not only making arrangement of regular Pujapath, Rajbhog etc. in the temple, but also by taking control in the financial matter including collection of rent from the number of tenants of the Trust. In fact, after judgment of this Court dated 11.4.2007 when the same also got affirmed by the Apex Court by way of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by Mahantha Sarvesh, the Chela of Mahantha Chandramani Das, the Board had also settled a scheme for proper administration of the Trust under Section 32 of the Act and had appointed a committee headed by Hon ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha by notification published in the official gazette on 29.5.2008. The said trust committee was in office and in possession of entire trust property including the Thakurbari but all of a sudden on 1.9.2008 its such possession was sought to be disturbed on account of forcible possession given to Ramakant Das with the help of police on the strength of the order of the Civil Court seeking to execute the decree in Execution Case No. 1 of 2000 and by giving possession thereof to Rama Kant Das only because his substitution had been allowed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 1 of 2000 by order dated 20.2.2008. 12. In such circumstances the committee appointed headed by Justice Uday Sinha which had been dispossessed of trust property including the Thakurbari and the office of Trust Committee on 1.9.2008 with the help of poliqe, had immediately filed an application under Order 21, rules 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the executing court for being restored of possession of the trust properties in terms of order of this Court dated 11.4.2007. When the Court below, however, did not pass any order on that application, the petitioner-Board had moved this Court challenging the very basis of execution being the order of substitution dated 20.2.2008 in C.R. No. 1530/2008 taking a plea that the substitution as prayed by Ramakant Das was allowed in an illegal manner and that too without hearing the Board and/or its trustee committee. 13. 13. This Court noticing the earlier judgment of this Court dated 11.4.2007 which had been also upheld by the Apex Court, had directed for issuance of notice to Ramakant Das and at the same time had made it clear that the trust properties must be strictly dealt with as per direction of this Court in the order dated 11.4.2007. In terms of the aforementioned order of this Court dated 12.9.2008 when the Board had filed an application bringing on record all these materials, the court below had directed Ramakant Das by its order dated 26.9.2008 for restoring possession of the properties of the trust and Thakurbari to the committee headed by Justice Uday Sinha, which has become subject matter of second C.R. No. 1827 of 2008 filed by the aforesaid Ramakant Das. 14. From the narration of the facts mentioned above it would be clear that the whole dispute now basically hinges on the issue as to whether the order dated 20.2.2008 passed by the court below directing substitution bringing Ramakant Das as legal representative of the original decree holder Ram Rajeshwar Das is legal and in terms of the Order 22, rule 5 of the C.P.C.? 15. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board in C.R. No. 1530 of 2008 has submitted that Order 22, rule 5 of the C.P.C. envisages an enquiry for determining the question as to whether any person is or is not legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff. He has submitted that when on 20.2.2008 such a question was being decided, it was incumbent upon the Court to take into account the whole background of the case, inasmuch as, the decree which was passed in the succession case no. 188 of 1961 filed by Ram Rajeshwar Das which was confined to a declaration that Ram Rajeshwar Das alone was the chela of Mahantha Ram Krishna Das and there was no adjudication in favour of any other person muchless Ramakant Das to be either the chela of Ram Rajeshwar Das or any right of succession to the office of Mahantha of Thakurbari. Mr. Mr. Choubey had further contended that as a matter of fact the order dated 20.2.2008 was passed by the Executing Court seeking to substitute Ramakant Das in place of Ram Rajeshwar Das, the original decree holder by ignoring the findings and direction recorded in the order of this Court dated 11.4.2007 in Misc. Appeal No. 205 of 2001 as also without ascertaining the fate and status of other pending cases including Probate Case No. 65 of 2003, Probate Case No. 46 of 2005 and its consequential title suit no. 2 of 2007, as also the earlier title suit no. 225 of 1978 regarding which not only were taken into consideration by the High Court, but in respect of them it was also observed that the trustee appointed by the Board would remain in office till the aforementioned cases were decided to settle the dispute as to who was the successor and trustee after Ram Rajeshwar Das. 16. Mr. S.K. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the aforesaid Ramakant Das, on the other hand, has submitted that the civil revision filed by the Board questioning the order dated 20.2.2008 in the execution case as with regard to substitution of Ramakant Das was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the Board was neither a party to the suit nor has any right to question the substitution allowed in favour of Ramakant Das. He had also submitted that the order of this Court dated 11.4.2007in fact had allowed the Board and its trustee appointed in terms of Section 33 or the trustee committee in terms of Section 32 of the Act to continue in office only till there was a vacancy in the office of the trustee of the Trust, but as soon as the executing court in the order dated 20.2.2008 had held that Ramakant Das was the legal representative of Ram Rajeshwar Das and was fit to be substituted in his place for executing the decree, he (Ramakant Das) must be held to have become the trustee as the dispute in this regard had been finally decided by the competent civil court in terms of paragraph 13 of the judgment of this Court dated 11.4.2007. 17. This Court is not in a position to accept the objection of Mr. Mazumdar as with regard to maintainability of the Civil Revision Application, inasmuch as, the Board and its trustee Mr. 17. This Court is not in a position to accept the objection of Mr. Mazumdar as with regard to maintainability of the Civil Revision Application, inasmuch as, the Board and its trustee Mr. Justice Uday Sinha appointed in view of direction of this Court in the judgment dated 11.4.2007, had been sought to be dispossessed from the entire trust properties only on the strength of the order dated 20.2.2008, in-asmuch as, it was after making substitution of Ramakant Das that an order for delivery of possession as prayed by him was issued by the Court. 18. That being so, if the right of any person in possession of the property was adversely affected by dispossessing him in consequence of execution of a decree he has a remedy as is recognized by Order 21 Rules 99 and 100 of the C.P.C. There will be thus no difficulty in holding that such person would definitely have also a right to question the basis of such delivery of possession. Since delivery of possession has been made only on the strength of the order dated 20.2.2008 allowing substitution of Ramakant Das in the execution case, this Civil Revision Application at the instance of the Board and its trustee is definitely maintainable. 19. The next submission of Mr. Mazumdar that the dispute as referred to in paragraph 13 of the judgment of this Court dated 11.4.2007 came to be decided in favour of Ramakant Das in view of order dated 20.2.2008 would in fact itself be an answer to the aforementioned preliminary objection because admittedly on the strength of the order of this Court dated 11.4.2007 Mr. Justice Uday Sinha and his committee came in office on being appointed by the Board by way of compliance of direction of this Court. The committee headed by Justice Uday Sinha was also in possession of the entire trust properties and that is why Ramakant Das with the help of police had sought to take possession of the properties of the trust including Thakurbari on 1.9.2008. Any person including the Board or its trustee therefore had definitely a right to question the decision of the executing court which in the opinion Ramakant Das had settled the dispute with regard to the office of Mahantha and as the submission of Mr. Any person including the Board or its trustee therefore had definitely a right to question the decision of the executing court which in the opinion Ramakant Das had settled the dispute with regard to the office of Mahantha and as the submission of Mr. Mazumdar is that the order dated 20.2.2008 had settled the dispute, the right of the Board to question such order cannot be questioned because not only the Board has statutory power to manage the affairs of each and every religious and charitable trust but has also power to appoint temporary trustree and frame the scheme for the management of the trust. When such right of the Board, which was being enjoyed by it not only under order of this Court dated 11.4.2007 but on account of the subsequent notification issued by it on 25.4.2007 by appointing Hon ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha as the trustee of the trust as also framing of the scheme and notifying the committee to manage the affairs of the trust on 29.5.2008, it would be difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Mazumdar that either the Board had no locus standi to question the said order dated 20.2.2008 or the subsequent event leading to dispossession of the Board and its trustee on 1.9.2008. 20. That apart, this Court from the tenor of the impugned order dated 20.2.2008 would find that the said order was passed merely on concession. The order records that Mahantha Ramakant Das had filed an application on 28.1.2003 under Order 22 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. for his substitution in place of the deceased decree holder Ram Rajeshwar Das only on the ground that he was the eldest Chela and as such has right to be substituted in place of the deceased decree holder. The order records that there was an objection on behalf of the judgment-debtor as also by one Mahantha Bimal Das on different grounds and while Mahanth Bimal Das claimed to be legal heir and Chela of the decree holder Ram Rajeshwar Das, the plea taken by the judgment-debtor was that there was no such Chela of Ram Rajeshwar Das. The order records that there was an objection on behalf of the judgment-debtor as also by one Mahantha Bimal Das on different grounds and while Mahanth Bimal Das claimed to be legal heir and Chela of the decree holder Ram Rajeshwar Das, the plea taken by the judgment-debtor was that there was no such Chela of Ram Rajeshwar Das. All these issues therefore were required to be decided in the light of evidence, but it appears that despite order to this effect passed by the court below on 6.1.2006 some compromise petition in form of an affidavit was filed wherein it was agreed that Mahantha Ramakant Das would be treated as eldest Chela and Mahantha Bimal Das would be second seniormost Chela. It was only on such concession of Bimal Das that he will have no objection if Ramakant Das was substituted in place of Mahantha Ram Rajeshwar Das, that the impugned order dated 20.2.2008 had been passed by the Executing Court. 21. It would thus be apparent that the requirement of Order 22, rule 5 of the C.P.C. was never fulfilled and in fact the Executing Court did not choose to make such enquiry and literally allowed the issue of substitution to be settled only on the basis of some compromise. The compromise petition filed by Ramakant Das and Bimal Das, the two claimant for substitution on the death of Ram Rajeshwar Das is Annexure-ll to this Civil Revision Application filed by the Board and makes an interesting reading which in extenso is quoted hereinbelow: "The humble compromise petition on behalf of Sri Ramakant Das and Sri VimaI Das, the two claimants, for substitution on the death of Mahanth Ram Rajeshwar Das. Most Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the original decree holder Ram Rajeshwar Das died on 1.1.2003 and the petitioners are fighting for substitution of their respective names in place of the decree holder. 2. Most Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the original decree holder Ram Rajeshwar Das died on 1.1.2003 and the petitioners are fighting for substitution of their respective names in place of the decree holder. 2. That the matter is lingering for the petty long time and there is no end of litigation and their suit is also unknown, under the circumstances, both the claimants agreed to and the dispute mutually, being the Chelas of late Ram Rajeshwar Das on the following terms: i. That it has been agreed and settled by the petitioners that Ramakant Das is the eldest chela of late Mahanth Ram Rajeshwar Das and Vimal Das is the younger chela than Ramakant Das, Vimal Das has no objection, if Ramakant Das the eldest chela of Ram Rajeshwar Das is substituted in his place as decree holder. ii. That it has been also agreed and settled that Mahanth Vimal Das will succeed the Mahanthship on death of Ram Rajeshwar Das for proper management and worship of the Thakurbari and the deities, if anybody the laim to be nominated chela of Mahanth Ramakant Das will not be accepted by any court as valid and legal. iii. It has been resolved by both the petitioners that Mahanth Ramakant Das will manage the affairs of Baba Bhkhim Das Thakurbari as Mahanthship. iv.That it has been also resolved between both the petitioner and Mahanth Ramakant Das will not raise any objection in L.A. Case No. 65 of 2005 pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-VII. 3. That the contents of the compromise petition have been read over and explained to the petitioners Mahanth Ramakant Das and Vimal Das in Hindi and after fully understanding the same after finding them correct have put their respective signatures on this compromise petition in token of acceptance of the compromise. The lawyers of both the petitioners have also signed the compromise at the instance of their respective clients. It is therefore prayed that your honour may be pleased to accept the compromise and substitute the name of Mahanth Ramakant Das in place of Ram Rajeshwar Das as decree holder." 22. From the aforementioned compromise petition it would be clear that in fact it was an attempt on the part of both Ramakant Das and Bimal Das to acquire line of succession in the garb of an order of substitution. From the aforementioned compromise petition it would be clear that in fact it was an attempt on the part of both Ramakant Das and Bimal Das to acquire line of succession in the garb of an order of substitution. Unfortunately, this had also been permitted by the court below by passing order dated 20.2.2008 which in its operative portion had held as follows: "In course of inquiry petitioner Ramakant Das has filed an affidavit of his deposition claiming to be the eldest chela of late Mahanth Ram Rajeshwar Das. The objector Mahanth Bimal Das has given evidence in the case. He has admitted in his deposition that he has compromised the case with the petitioner Mahanth Ramakant Das. He has no objection if the petitioner Ramakant Das is substituted in place of late Mahanth Ram Rajeshwar Das. Both have admitted that they have entered into a compromise. The judgment- debtor has not adduced any evidence. I have no option but to allow the petition of Mahanth Ramakant Das. Accordingly the substitution petition filed on behalf of Mahanth Ramakant Das is allowed. His name be substituted in place of decree holder late Mahanth Ram Rajeshwar Das. Put up on 7.3.2008 for further proceeding." 23. In such a situation, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that the order dated 20.2.2008 fulfills the requirement of Order 22 Rule 5 of the C.P.C, inasmuch, as the rule is mandatory in nature andowhen the question as to whether a person is legal representative or not, is raised before a court, the same has to be determined in an effective manner as was held by this Court in the case of Md. Zalauddin Haque vs. Zusedul Haider, reported in AIR 1981 Patna 345 wherein the law was laid down in the following words: In my opinion however, there is substance in the second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, namely, that the court below erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the application for substitution without expressly recording a finding that in view of the will in his favour, the petitioner before it viz. Md. Zubair Haider was the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. Md. Zubair Haider was the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. As already stated defendant No. 2 had specifically challenged the execution of any will by the deceased and, therefore, had asserted that the petitioner was not the legatee under the will of the plaintiff and, therefore, not her legal representative. It was, therefore, a case in which the question arose as to whether the petitioner before the court below was or was not the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. According to O 22, Rule 5 C.P.C. such a question shall be determined by the court subject to the proviso which in this case has no application. The court below therefore, had to record a specific finding on the question whether the petitioner before it was or was not the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. It has not recorded any specific finding on that point. The point has been dealt with by the court below thus: "It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the will can be challenged by the heirs who have not come forward to challenge the said will and as such defendant No. 2 could not legally challenge the said will on the basis of which the petitioner has come for being substituted. There is substance in the contention of the petitioner." The court below, therefore, has refused to determine the question whether any will had been executed in favour of the petitioner before it on the ground that the will could be challenged only by the heirs of the deceased. Now under Order 22, Rule 5 of C.P.C. it was the duty of the court to determine whether the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and for determining that question it was necessary for it to investigate and decide whether any will in favour of the petitioner as alleged by him had been executed by the deceased or in the alternative to record a specific finding that the petitioner had intermeddled with the estate of the deceased. That it omitted to do. The order of substitution has, therefore, been passed in contravention of the provision of Order 22, Rule 5 C.P.C. and, therefore, illegally and with material illegality or irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction." 24. That it omitted to do. The order of substitution has, therefore, been passed in contravention of the provision of Order 22, Rule 5 C.P.C. and, therefore, illegally and with material illegality or irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction." 24. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that in terms of the Order 22, rule 12 of the C.P.C. an application filed by Ramakant Das for substitution was itself not maintainable, inasmuch as, in execution proceedings the Rules 3, 4 and 8 have been made inapplicable. In fact, the legal representative of the deceased decree holder can be brought on record even without allowing substitution as was held in the case of Akhoy Kumar Talukdar and Others vs. Surendra Lal Pal reported in AIR 1926 Calcutta 957 and in the cases of Venkatachalam Chetti vs. Ramaswamy Servai and Others reported in AIR 1932 Madras 73 (Full Bench). The Full Bench of Madras High Court in the aforesaid case had in fact held that: "........Though Order 22 has no application to execution proceedings. still by reason of Section 146 and Order 21 Rule 16 C.P.C. the legal representative of a decree holder who dies during the pendency of an execution petition can be substituted in the execution petition and be allowed to continue it........" However, when a question would arise as to whether a person is legal representative or not and if there be any objection to that effect, in the opinion of this Court the executing Court will be required to decide that question in terms of Order 22, rule 5 of the C.P.C. which only lays down the manner for determination of question as to legal representative. The conscious omission . of Rule 5 in Rule 12 under Order 22 of the C.P.C. at least is pointer to the fact that if the question of legal representative is raised, the executing court would be required to determine such question. 25 It has to be also understood that the court has to merely decide the issue of legal representative and it is not required to declare who is owner of the property of the deceased decree holder, rather only look into limited issue confined to the authorize a legal representative to execute decree. 25 It has to be also understood that the court has to merely decide the issue of legal representative and it is not required to declare who is owner of the property of the deceased decree holder, rather only look into limited issue confined to the authorize a legal representative to execute decree. In the case of Kalaimal Mills Ltd. vs. WaIi Mohammad reported in AIR 1965 M.P. 72 , it was in fact held that a person by being a legal representative does not get any right conferred on him either in respect of title or interest in the deceaseds estate rather it only empowers him to continue with suit or appeal or the executing a decree as the case may be. As may be noted in this case also the key issue as to whether in fact Mahantha Ramakant Das is the successor Mahantha, after the death of the earlier Mahantha Rajeshwar Das cannot be adjudicated under the limited jurisdiction of Order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. and that can be decided only in a properly constituted civil proceeding alike the one in which Ram Rajeshwar Das was declared to be the successor of his Guru. Mahantha Ram Krishna Das on the basis of a will dated 21.12.1952, which on contest in succession case no. 188 of 1961 was decided in his favour by a judgment of competent civil court dated 28.3.1977. In fact the issue of succession of Ramakant Das is pending consideration in Probate Case No. 65 of 2003 and Title Suit No. 2 of 2005 and therefore an order dated 20.2.2008 cannot by itself give right to Mahantha Ramakant Das to become the Mahantha and thus the Trustee. In any event the order dated 20.2.2008 allowing substitution of Ramakant Das does not fulfil even the requirement of Order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. and as such cannot be allowed to be made pivot for unsettling the affairs of the Trust and its Thakurbari, contrary to the directions of this Court in an inter-parte judgment dated 11.4.2007 in M.A. 56 of 1997. 26. 26. In that view of the matter, this Court has no option but to hold that at least when an issue of legal representative was raised before the executing Court, it had to be decided strictly in terms of Order 22, rule 5 of the C.P.C. and that having been not done this Court will have no option but to set aside the impugned order dated 20.2.2008 and all the consequential actions of this Court below based on the aforesaid impugned order dated 20.2.2008 including the direction for delivery of possession and/or the possession given to Ramakant Das through the help of police. 27. As a consequence of setting aside the impugned order dated 20.2.2008, the court below is directed to reconsider the application of Ramakant Das dated 28.1.2003 strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner-Board and/or its Trust committee headed by Justice Uday Sinha. 28. Once this Court has found the order dated 20.2.2008 to be bad, there would be no difficulty in dismissing the Civil Revision Application filed by Ramakant Das (C.R. No. 1827/2008) against the order dated 26.9.2008 whereby and whereunder, all that has been done by the court is that it has chosen ultimately to act as per earlier direction of this Court dated 11.4.2007 in Misc. Appeal No. 205 of 2001. 29. It would be actually found from the judgment of the aforementioned miscelaneous appeal no. 205 of 2001 dated 11.4.2007 that this Court had found that there was an ongoing dispute with regard to office of the trustee and as many as four cases were pending on this issue, being Title Suit No. 225 of 1978, Probate Case No. 65 of 2003, Probate Case No. 46 of 2005 and its consequential Title Suit No. 2 of 2007 and it was in this aspect that a direction was given that till the dispute is decided in the aforementioned cases the Board and its committee would continue to remain in office and manage the affairs of the trust. The Board had in fact done so by appointing Justice Uday Sinha as trustee, later on Chairman of the Trust Committee, by not only naming other members but also framing the scheme. The said trustee, Mr. The Board had in fact done so by appointing Justice Uday Sinha as trustee, later on Chairman of the Trust Committee, by not only naming other members but also framing the scheme. The said trustee, Mr. Uday Sinha in fact had remained in office and had managed the affairs of the trust from 25.4.2007 to 1.9.2008 when they were sought to be dispossessed under the orders of the executing court which after allowing substitution of Ramakant Das on 20.2.2008 had allowed his prayer for giving him possession of the entire properties of the trust by way of executing a decree originally passed in favour of Ram Rajeshwar Das. The court below therefore has noted that the committee headed by Justice Uday Sinha was in office and was in possession of the property till delivery of possession was effected to Ramakant Das with the help of police on 1.9.2008. 30. It is also not in dispute that on the one hand Ramakant Das was claiming to be successor of Ram Rajeshwar Das by being his Chela and thus Mahanth/ trustee of the trust, but on the other hand, he himself had filed an application before the Board for being declared as Mahanth of the trust on 9.11.2006. Admittedly, the Board in exercise of statutory power was still to decide and pass orders as to whether claim of Ramakant Das of being Chela of Ram Rajeshwar Das was correct or not. In that view of the matter also the direction given by this Court in the judgment dated 11.4.2007 assumes significance, inasmuch as, this Court therein had used expression of "ending the dispute on line of succession of Mahanth Ram Rajeshwar Das either by judgment of the Court or by order of an authority". While judgment of the Court deciding such dispute could be in Title Suit No. 225 of 1978, Probate Case No. 65 of 2003, Probate Case No. 46 of 2005 and its consequential title suit no. 2 of 2007, the decision of the authority would be that of the Board in view of power vested by the Board under the Act. 31. 2 of 2007, the decision of the authority would be that of the Board in view of power vested by the Board under the Act. 31. Accordingly, this Court must hold that the issue of legal representative of Ramakant Das being only Chela or being first or one of the two chela as per earlier decision or best among the several Chelas of Ram Rajeshwar Das was yet to be adjudicated in terms of judgment of this Court dated 11.4.2007 either by the Court or by the Board and as such a mere order dated 20.2.2008 allowing substitution in the execution case could not have by itself been treated to be an authority for either treating Ramakant Das to be successor of Ram Rajeshwar Das or get thedelivery of possession effected in that capacity. 32. In that view of the matter thss Court while maintaining consistency in the finding arrived at In the earlier inter-party judgment dated 11.4.2007 in the miscellaneous appeal no. 205 of 2001, must hold that the valuable suit property worth several crores of rupees, in the heart of the town of Patna must be managed by the Trust Committee appointed by the Board till the dispute is decided in the aforementioned four pending cases in the Civil Court or by the Board itself in view of pending application of Ramakant Das seeking his declaration as Mahanth of Thakurbari. 33. That being so, C.R. No. 1827 of 2008 is found without any substance and is accordingly dismissed. 34. This Court has been informed that despite order dated 26.9.2008 of the court below the petitioner of C.R. No. 1827 of 2008, Mahanth Ramakant Das has not handed over possession of the trust properties and the Thakurbari till date to the Trust Committee headed by Justice Uday Sinha, a retired Judge of this Court. 34. This Court has been informed that despite order dated 26.9.2008 of the court below the petitioner of C.R. No. 1827 of 2008, Mahanth Ramakant Das has not handed over possession of the trust properties and the Thakurbari till date to the Trust Committee headed by Justice Uday Sinha, a retired Judge of this Court. Now in view of the fact that the Civil Revision Application of the Board has been allowed and the order dated 20.2.2008 allowing substitution of Ramakant Das has been set aside and the order of the court below dated 26.9.2008 has been affirmed, the court below is directed to get the possession restored to the trust committee of Justice Uday Sinha in the same manner in which delivery of possession of the property of the trust and Thakurbari was handed over to Ramakant Das, i.e., even by taking recourse of police help as was done on the earlier occasion while effecting delivery of possession to Ramakant Das. Steps for such restoration of possession to the Trust Committee of the Board headed by Justice Uday Sinha must be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 35. With the aforementioned observation/direction while C.R. No. 1530 of 2008 is allowed, C.R. No. 1827 of 2008 is dismissed. There would be however no order as to costs.