JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Jha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of this petition at the stage of admission itself. 2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.01.2017 passed by learned Sub-Judge-V, Hajipur in Title Suit No. 658 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned Sub- Judge-V, Hajipur, dismissed the substitution petition of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Ayodhya Mishra, son of Late Shiv Gulam Mishra was the resident of Village-Birara, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District-Vaishali and he established ‘Sri Baba Narmadeshwar Nath Shankar Bhagwan Mandir’ and made a trust in which five persons, namely, Umesh Mishra, Gagandev Mishra, Sita Ram Mishra, Mundrika Mishra and Awadh Kishore Panday @ Kishori Panday were inducted as members by executing a registered ‘Samarpannama’ dated 01.10.1981. In the said ‘Samarpannama’, the trust members were given right to select sewait or pujari for furthering cause of the mandir but they could not sell the property of the mandir. After the death of Ayodhya Mishra, who died issueless, one of the turst members, namely, Mundrika Mishra was appointed as sewait and as the nephews of late Ayodhya Mishra committed some fraud, Sewait of the mandir, Mundrika Mishra, filed Title Suit No. 658 of 2010 in the court of learned Sub-Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur on 21.12.2010. In the year 2012, Mundrika Mishra, sewait of the mandir, died and thereafter Awadh Kishore Panday @ Kishori Panday was appointed as sewait of the mandir and his name was substituted in Title Suit No. 658 of 2010 in place of Mundrika Mishra. Subsequently, on 11.04.2016, Awadh Kishore Panday @ Kishori Panday also died. After death of Awadh Kishore Panday @ Kishori Panday, a meeting of trustees and villagers was held on 05.09.2016, in which, it was decided to appoint the petitioner, who is son of late Awadh Kishore Panday, as sewait of the mandir. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 07.09.2016, filed a substitution petition in the court of learned Sub-Judge, Hajipur at Vaishali in in Title Suit No. 658 of 2010 for substitution of his name as sewait in place of his father, late Awadh Kishore Panday. On 27.09.2016, a rejoinder to the said petition was also filed by the respondent no. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 07.09.2016, filed a substitution petition in the court of learned Sub-Judge, Hajipur at Vaishali in in Title Suit No. 658 of 2010 for substitution of his name as sewait in place of his father, late Awadh Kishore Panday. On 27.09.2016, a rejoinder to the said petition was also filed by the respondent no. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the substitution petition of the petitioner dated 07.09.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submits that the remaining trust members have no interest in the work of mandir and in the meeting held on 05.09.2016, one of the trust members, namely, Gagandeo Mishra was present where other villagers were also present and a decision was taken to appoint the petitioner as sewait of the mandir. The learned trial court did not consider this fact and dismissed the petition overlooking the relevant facts. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that in terms of ‘samarpannama’, by which the trust was created, three trust members could appoint a sewait of mandir and in the case of the petitioner only one member, namely, Gagandeo Mishra, put his signature whereas other two living members, namely, Sita Ram Mishra and Umesh Mishra did not sign the papers by which the petitioner was appointed as sewait of mandir. Learned counsel further submits that only the trust members can make the appointment of sewait of mandir and villagers are not empowered to appoint a sewait. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials available on record, admittedly, samarpannama talks about the trust members who can appoint sewait of mandir and the appointment of sewait could not be made in any other manner. If the appointment of petitioner was not made by remaining three trust members, the petitioner cannot claim to be substituted in place of his father, late Awadh Kishore Panday, who was appointed as sewait by the trust members by following proper procedure. For this reason, I do not find any infirmity in the order challenged before me. If the appointment of petitioner was not made by remaining three trust members, the petitioner cannot claim to be substituted in place of his father, late Awadh Kishore Panday, who was appointed as sewait by the trust members by following proper procedure. For this reason, I do not find any infirmity in the order challenged before me. If the petitioner were appointed by the remaining three trust members stated to be alive as on date, the learned trial court could have considered his right to be substituted in place of earlier sewait of mandir, his father, in Title Suit No. 658 of 2010, but the same is not the case here. 7. Hence, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned trial court after making necessary formalities with regard to his appointment as sewait, if so advised.