AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We agree with Mr. Justice Bakewell in Varadayya Chetti v. Munisami Chetty (1911) 10 M.L.T. 514. We think (a) that a suit brought u/s 92 of
the CPC is a representative suit and (b) that the Court has power to add other worshippers as parties not because they are the legal
representatives of the two persons who instituted the suit with the Advocate-General''s sanction but because they had become parties to the
representative suit as soon as it was brought on behalf of all the worshippers and the Court has power under Order 1, Rule 10 Clause (2) of the
CPC to add persons as additional parties "" whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to
adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit.
With respect, we do not agree with the decisions of the Allahabad High Court (see the recent decision in Chhaible Ram v. Durga Prasad ILR
(1914) . 296, which hold that the suit u/s 92 of the CPC abates on the death of the two plaintiffs who first instituted the suit or that the consent of
the Advocate-General is necessary for any other worshipper to be added as a party in order that the suit may be further prosecuted.
The point of limitation taken by Mr. Sundaram for the appellants is barred on the view that the application made by the 3rd plaintiff to be added
as a party was one to set aside the abatement of the suit and to be brought in as legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff. The point does not arise
on our above view and the learned District Judge''s order is right.
We therefore dismiss the petition with costs.