Ponniatha Kathoot Parameswaran Munpee and Others vs Moothedath Mallisseri Illath Narayanan Nambodri and Another

We agree with Mr. Justice BAKEWELL''S decision in Varadayya Chetty v. Munusami 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 (6) 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 I, Rule 10, Clause (2) of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 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 Chhabile Ram v. Durga Prasad ILR

(1915) All. 296, which holds that the suit u/s 92 of the CPC abates on the death of one 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 based on the view that the application made by the third plaintiff to be added

as a party was one to set aside the abatement of the suit and to be brought in as legal representative of the second 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.