Baldeo Bharthi v. Bir Gir

Burkitt and Aikman, JJ.:— In this appeal it is frankly admitted for the appellant that he has no case whatever on the merits. The learned advocate who appears for him raises a technical plea founded on the following facts. The plaintiffs are mahants of a religious body who style themselves Niranjani Akbara comprising hundreds of followers and worshippers. The persons originally claiming in the plaint were the mahants or heads of this body. An objection was taken by the defendants in their written statement that the, plaintiffs alone could not sue and that it was necessary that all the other members of the Akhara should join as plaintiffs. Upon this an application was made by the plaintiffs, purporting to be under s. 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking that, as provided in that section, notices should issue to the various parties who, the defendants alleged, ought to be joined as plaintiffs in the suit, and that permission should be given to the plaintiffs to sue on their behalf. The permission asked for was granted, and the suit proceeded to trial and judgment. It is now contended (judgment having been given against the defendants) that the permission given after the suit had been instituted and after the defendants had been summoned, was a bad permission, and that therefore the trial was vitiated, and the decree a bad one. As to this contention it [270] is sufficient to refer to the case of Fernandez v. Rodrigues. In that case it was held by a Full Bench that the permission required by s. 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be given subsequently to the filing of the suit. In that decision and in the reasoning on which it was based we fully concur. As remarked by the learned Chief Justice in that case, the question is only one of adding parties. We dismiss this appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed.