IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.666 of 2006 BIRMANI PANDEY & ORS Versus SWAMI DHARNIDHAR ACHARYA ----------- 6 17/9/2008 Heard the parties. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order for the reasons mentioned therein cannot be said to be based on any jurisdictional error. As a matter of fact, the moment petitioner admits that the order came to be passed under section 33 of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, framing scheme and appointing temporary trustee for the trust in question which is subject matter, whose property is subject matter in the suit concerned, bar of section 77 of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act had automatically become applicable. Section 77 of the Act reads as follows:- “Bar of suits- save as otherwise provided in this Act, no suit shall be brought in any Civil Court to set aside or modify any order made under this Act, and no suit shall lie against the Board, the President or any other member or the Superintendent for anything in good faith done or purporting to be done under this Act.” 2 It is, thus, clear that when the Board had appointed the Collector of the Patna district as a temporary trustee under section 33 of the Act, he had definitely power to act in terms of that authority vested in him and therefore if on that basis the Collector, Patna district has taken over property of the trust in question, no relief can be admissible to the petitioner at least in the suit as against that action of the Board or the action of the Collector acting as authority under the Act in view of the bar created under Section 77 of the Act. That being so, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order wherein court below has rightly refused to restore possession of the disputed property in exercise of its power under Section-151 of the Code of Civil Procedure specially when a specific prayer for injunction of the petitioners for the same relief in terms of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. had already been rejected by an order dated 26.2.2003 in 3 Title Suit no. 436 of 2002. Accordingly, this application being wholly misconceived must be and is hereby dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar