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 I.L.R (1906) 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 I.L.R (1886) Mad. 185 and Appeals Nos. 310 and 373 of 1918 and Appeal No. 9 of 1919 (un-reported).
4. We think that both the original plaintiffs and the Advocate General represented the public interests when they sued for the protection of a trust under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and in such a case the most important questions to be settled in the suit are those which relate to the administration of the trust and the court has power under Order 1 Rule 10 to add parties for the effectual adjudication of those questions. See parmeswaran Munpee v. Narayan Nambudri I.L.R (1616) Mad.110 : 1616 31 M.L.J. 279. We cannot read into the rule the words ' as between the partiss to the suit' after the words ' questions involved in the suits ' as to do so would be to defeat the object of this salutary provision of law for the final settlement of disputes, seeing that in almost every case a similar objection might be taken to the exercise of this power.
5. Another argument based on the wording of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, is that a suit brought by the Advocate-General in conjunction with two other worshippers to whom he has given his consent in writing to sue, would be not maintainable. It is argued that the exercise of the right of action by one party exhausts the right of the other.
6. As we understand the section, the Advocate-General has the power to sue and the other parties have the same right and they may exercise that right separately or in conjunction with each other.
7. The right of each to sue in his own name is not exclusive of the right of the other. Cases in which there is a competition between two or more plaintiffs will be governed by Order 1 Rule 1, C. P.C. subject to Rules 2 and 11 of the same order. As the other plaintiffs have agreed in the lower court to the Advocate-General having the conduct of these suits, the defendant will not be embarrassed nor will the trial be delayed by the procedure which the lower court has adopted.
8. The Revision Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed with costs, (one set for each petition).