Pandrang Row, J.
1. The petitioner's application' under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious-Endowments Act, was dismissed by the District Judge without allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence as the learned Judge was of opinion that the procedure contemplated by the Act places-the obligation upon him of adducing evidence at the time of the hearing of the dispute by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, and that the petitioner was not entitled; therefore to have the matter heard practically de novo. This very question was expressly decided in the contrary by a. Bench of this Court in Iswarananda Bharathi Swami v. H.R.E. Board Madras 1932 Mad 593, the head-note of which runs as follows:
An application under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, is not merely in the nature of an appeal or revision petition;...the application is, so far as the Court is concerned, an application to which the ordinary procedure of the Court will apply, and on which the parties have the right to produce such evidence as they wish.
2. The order of the District Judge dismissing the petition without allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence therefore set aside, and the District Judge is directed to restore the petition to his file and dispose of it afresh after giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. The costs of this revision petition will be costs in the cause and should be provided for in the revised order of the District Judge.