JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar,J. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The tenant-applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 26 November 2015 passed by the revisional court/District Judge, Hathras in SCC Revision No. 17 of 2015 (Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir vs. Agrasen Kanya Vidyalaya Management Committee) arising from the judgment and decree passed by the small causes court at Hathras dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction and arrears of rent. 2. One of the trustees claiming to be Manager, namely, Prem Ballabh Das of Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent which was contested by the applicant raising a plea of locus and maintainability of the suit at the behest of Prem Ballabh. Apart from giving other reasons for dismissal of the suit, the court also took note of the fact that several civil suits were pending in which Managerial rights have been claimed by the sons of late Ram Saran Das, including Prem Ballabh Das. The trial court upon considering the evidence, material on record and the findings recorded by this Court in Writ Petition No.43753 of 2005, filed by Prem Ballabh Das (Agrawal), held, that the suit was not maintainable for want of locus. In this view of the matter, it was observed in the judgment that Prem Ballabh Das is not the Manager of the trust. In revision, the revisional court while admitting the revision clarified that the observation made by the trial court in the impugned judgment dated 18 November 2015 regarding competence of the second respondent being the Manager of the trust shall not be read against the respondent-revisionist and would have no implication on the other pending suits. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant is aggrieved by the observation made in the operative portion of the impugned order, he would, therefore, urge that the order tantamounts to injunction conferring rights upon the second respondent to function as Manager, therefore, the observations are in teeth with Section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in contempt of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. 4. 4. In rebuttal, Sri Saxena, learned Senior Counsel would submit that this Court may clarify that the observations made in the judgment and decree dated 18 November 2015 would not tantamount to a declaration that the plaintiff is either the Manager, or is not managing the affairs of the trust, further, the observations of the trial court would have no bearing on the pending suits. 5. The revisional court hearing a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against a decree of dismissal of the suit would have no competence to hold or declare either directly or indirectly one of the claimants as Manager of the trust which, admittedly is subject matter of pending suits, further, in summary proceedings the question of locus, competence of the second respondent to manage the affairs of the trust as Manager could only have been gone into incidentally, but authoritative finding could not have been returned while clarifying the observations made in the judgment of the trial court, the revisional court has practically held the second respondent the Manager of the trust and stayed the judgement and decree to the extent it would have an effect on the management of the affairs of the trust by the second respondent as Manager, which was in contradiction to the order passed in the writ petition, wherein, the second respondent was held not to the Manager of the trust. The question was to be adjudicated in the pending suits. 6. In this view of the matter, the operative part of the impugned order dated 26 November 2015 is set aside, it is clarified that the observation made in the judgment and decree dated 18 November 2015 regarding the second respondent (Ramballabh Das) not being the Manager shall have no bearing on the pending suits seeking declaration of managerial rights of the trust, accordingly, the impugned order would stand substituted. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of. No cost.