KIDAR NATH DATT Vs. KISHAN DAS BAIRAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition trader Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises the question whether a new defendant can be added in a suit under Section 92 of the code of Civil Procedure without the previous sanction of the Advocate-General.

(2.) ON the 26th August 1955 Ch. Kidar Nath. Rai Bahadur Gopal Das and certain other persons brought a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against Ramsaran Das and Ram Pra-kash in which they asked for the removal of ramsaran Das from the office of Mahant of a Thakardwara. On the 21st November 1955 one Kishan Das presented an application under Rule 10 of Order 1 of the code of Civil Procedure in which he prayed that he be impleaded as a defendant to the suit as Ramsaran Das had been removed and Kishan Das had been appointed a Mahant by the sewaks on the 23rd June 1853. The trial Court acceded to this request despite the protests of the plaintiffs and impleaded Kishan Das as defendant No. 3. The plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the order and have come to this Court in revision.

(3.) IT is a recognised principle of law that a person is not at liberty to secure the redress of a public wrong by means of a civil suit when he suffers injury in common with the public generally, even though his loss is greater than others, unless a statute expressly empowers him to do so. It is equally, clear that when the duty of enforcing the provisions of a particular statute is entrusted to a particular executive officer, the help of the Court can be invoked only by such executive officer and no other person and that (sic) is not open to a member of the public to intrude upon his functions. In England the Attorney-General who is the protector of charities is normally a necessary party to actions relating to public charities. He may either act alone as the officer of the Crown who is by law entrusted with such duties or he may act on the request of a private individual who thinks the charity is being or has been abused. He has entire control of the action and no amendment can be made without his consent (Shelfords Law of Mortmain 400; Attorney-General v. Fellows, (1820) 1 Jac and W 254 (A), for it is essential that the authority and discretion of the attorney-General in all these proceedings should be maintained perfectly unbroken, unfettered and unbiassed Attorney-General v. Ironmongers' Co. , (1840)2 Beav 313 (B ).