AMBALAVANA PANDARA SANNADHI Vs. ADVOCATE-GENERAL OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Subordinate Judge has directed the addition of the Advocate- General as a plaintiff to two suits under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which relate to the administration of a mutt and a temple, and the question we have to decide is whether we should in the exercise of our powers of revision interfere with that order.

(2.) It is argued that, if it be shown, as the defendant proposes to do that the other plaintiffs are not persons having an interest in the trust, the suit will be liable to be dismissed, and that the addition of the Advocate-General is not necessary for the complete disposal of the suit as originally instituted.

(3.) Order 1 Rule 10(2), Civil Procedure Code provides for the addition of parties whose presence is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. We are not disposed to place a narrow construction on these words. The case in Darves Haji Mahomad v. Jainudin (1906) I.L.R. 30 Bom. 603 certainly sup-ports Mr. Rangachariar s arguments for the petitioner that a suit which is bad at its institution cannot be bettered by the addition of another plaintiff. But the view taken in Bombay has not been followed in this Court : see Ramayyangar v. Krishna Ayyangar (1886) I.L.R. 10 Mad. 185 and Appeals Nos. 310 and 373 of 1918 and Appeal No. 9 of 1919 (un-reported).