1. 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 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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 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.'
2. With respect, we do not agree with the decisions of the Allahabad High Court (see the recent decision in Chhaible Ram v. Durga Prasad I.L.R. (1914) . 296, which hold that the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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.
3. 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.
4. We therefore dismiss the petition with costs.