1. This is an application for revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., and is directed against an order of Mr. Munir dated 15th January 1931 refusing to entertain an application filed by Lalas Kapur Chand and Ram Ratan that they should be impleaded in the action brought by Lala Jawahar Lal plaintiff in Suit No. 911 of 1920 under Sub-rule 2, Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C. There is a temple situate in mohalla Old Generalgunj which is known as the Digambar Jain old temple. The temple is presided over by a deity and its affairs are administered and controlled by a managing committee consisting of the members of the Digambar Jain community of Cawnpore. Lala Faqir Chand was secretary and manager of this temple and had the control of funds which chiefly consisted of voluntary offerings and contributions made by the Jain community for the maintenance and upkeep of the temple. Lala Faqir Chand vacated his office on 10th September 1927. Lala Jahawar Lal Jaini was elected secretary and manager in his place. At the time of handing over the charge of the office Lala Faqir Chand failed to account for a sum of Rs. 2,500 which were in his hands as part of the funds belonging to the temple. He stated that this sum had been lent to Lala Achambe Lal Sadh of Farrukhabad. Lala Achambe Lal Sadh denied that he had ever received this money from Lala Faqir Chand; hence the suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 323-12-0 interest from Lala Achambe Lal Sadh or Lala Faqir Chand, whichever of the two persons might be found to be liable for the same. Lala Achambe Lal Sadh denied having ever received the money from Lala Faqir Chand.
2. An application was presented by the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., for leave to institute a suit on behalf of the Digambar Jain community of Cawnpore on the allegation that numerous persons were interested in the subject matter of the suit and that the interest was common. The learned Munsif if he felt inclined to grant permission ought to have recorded an order in writing, and on his granting the permission, it was imperative upon him to issue a notice as required under the said rule. No permission either in express terms or by necessary implication appears to have been granted in the case. No notice as was required under this section was issued. He however proceeded to try the suit. He held that it was not proved that Lala Faqir Chand had lent the money to Lala Achambe Lal or even deposited the money with him. He consequently dismissed the claim against Lala Achambe Lal but granted a decree against Lala Faqir Chand. Lala Faqir Chand appealed. The lower appellate Court has reversed the decision of the trial Court upon the ground that inasmuch as the plaintiff wanted to institute a representative suit within the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., and the formalities of the said section not having been complied with there was no proper trial, it accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remanded the case under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C., for disposal of the case after due compliance with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8. On 15th January 1931, Lalas Kapur Chand and Ram Ratan made an application in the Court of the Munsif that they should be impleaded in the action under Order 1, Rule 8. Sub-section 2, Civil P.C. This application was dismissed on 15th January 1931 upon the grounds that the applicants did not claim to possess a common interest with the plaintiff. Lala Kapur Chand and Ram Ratan have applied to this Court for the revision of this order. Dr. Katju, on behalf of the respondents, takes a preliminary objection to the hearing of this application on the ground that the order sought to be revised was an interlocutory order and as such no application for revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., was competent because the proceedings did not constitute the proceedings in a 'case decided.'
3. The principal ground on which the applicants sought to be impleaded in the action was that the money did not belong to the Digambar Jain community of Cawnpore, but belonged to the idol presiding in the temple. The money does not belong to the Digambar Jain community but it belongs either to the Jain temple or to its presiding deity. There is no conflict of interest between the temple and the idol. The idol belongs to the temple and the temple belongs to the idol. Whichever be taken to be the juristic entity--the temple or the idol--neither of these being a sentient person, its affairs must be conducted through some human agency. The Digambar Jain community of Cawnpore is not the owner of the funds contributed to the temple in the shape of voluntary donations or offerings but is interested in the proper application of the funds which are intended for the maintenance of the temple, the upkeep and the worship according to the formalities prescribed by the Jain Shastras. The plaintiff does not claim to have a personal interest in the money and does not bring the suit on the allegation that the money belongs to the Digambar Jain community of Cawnpore. The application of Kapur Chand and Ram Ratan proceeds upon a misconception of facts and the application does not appear to be a bona fide application in the interest either of the temple or the idol and appears to have been made with a view to support Faqir Chand in his endeavour to defeat the claim. One of the applicants has been said to be a relative of Faqir Chand and that fact is not denied.
4. Where an application under Order 1, Rule 8, Sub-rule 2, Civil P.C., has been made mala fide, apparently with a view to defeat the claim against a quondam trustee in respect of a public trust, the order of the Court dismissing the application is not liable to interference by this Court under Section 115, Civil P.C., notwithstanding the fact that the reasons for the order were not correct. The powers under Section 115, Civil P.C., are intended to be exercised with a view to subserve and not to defeat the ends of justice. We refuse to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicants in this case and dismiss the application with costs. We pronounce no opinion on the preliminary objection. The application for revision having been dismissed, the stay order is discharged.