V.P. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 29 -10 1983 passed by Shri R.P. Misra, 1st Additional District Judge, Basti in original suit No. 2 of 1971.
(2.) THE brief facts of the matter are that two persons Narbadeshwar Prasad Misra and Behari Singh moved an application under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act of 1963 before the District Judge, Basti for leave to institute a suit under Section 14 of the Act. This permission was accorded on 21 -2 -70. Then these two persons joined in filing a suit under Section 14 of the Act on 10 -10 -1971. Simultaneously they also moved an application purporting to be under Order 1 Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure for permission to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity. This application was also allowed on 13 -5 -1972. The suit that they had filed, was registered as suit No. 2 of 1971. While the suit was pending Narbadeshwar Prasad Misra died on 19 -10 -1974. Behari Singh the other Plaintiff put in an application in Court on 24 -12 -1974 saying that since the suit had been filed under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, there was no need of substitution of any legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff and he only wanted consequential amendment in the plaint to be carried out. At that time an stay order granted by this Court was in operation, and therefore this application of Behari Singh could not be disposed of. As chance will have it, Behari Singh also died on 10 -9 -1979. On 16 -12 -1981 the Defendants of this suit namely Sliitla Prasad and others put forth before the Court an application No. 71 -C with affidavit 72 -C alleging that since no application for substitution of legal representatives of Behari Singh has been moved within time, therefore the suit stands abated. On 19 -12 -1981 Ram Sabad Misra, Ram Shankar, Vishwanath, Krishna Murari Dube and Chandrika Prasad who are the present Respondents moved an application 56 -A alleging that the original Plaintiffs Narbedshwar Prasad Misra and Behari Singh have died but since the suit had been filed in representative capacity and since they (applicants) were members of the Hindu Community interested in the temple, they should be brought on the record and allowed to continue the suit. They also moved an application purporting to be under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay. Against these petitions, objections were filed by the Defendants Shitla Prasad and others alleging that the applications were not maintainable. The learned 1st Additional District Judge, Basti by his impugned order dated 29 -10 -1983 held that the suit had not abated and that the applicants were not required to seek any fresh leave of the Court for continuing and maintaining the suit. He dismissed the objections filed by the present revisionists and directed a consequential amendment in the plaint to be incorporated.
(3.) THE argument advanced before me is that since permission was obtained by two persons and both of them have died, therefore, the suit can not be continued and if some other persons come alleging that they are interested in the Religious Endowment in question, they should seek fresh permission of the Court under the provisions of Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act and then file a suit under Section 14. It is contended that the present suit can not be continued by rank out -siders.;