- (1.) Two questions arise for determination in this appeal. Firstly, whether the impugned order is appealable Under Order XLIII, Rule l(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, if it is not appealable, whether it is open to revision and whether in the circumstances of the case it should be interfered with and set aside in revision.
(2.) The facts are these. The Plaintiffs-Appellants instituted a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the Hindu public of mohalla Shahpara claiming: (a) a declaration that Jagdish Prasad the Defendant first-party had no concern with the ownership of the temple and the houses attached to it as detailed at the foot of the plaint; and (b) a permanent injunction restraining him from taking possession over the suit property and restraining him further from interfering with the right of the Hindu public of that locality in the darshan and worship of the deity.
(3.) The necessity for the suit, according to the Plaintiffs, arose because in an earlier uit between the Defendants first-party and the Defendants-second-party a decree was passed by the lower court in favour of the Defendant first-party holding that the property was his own and that, although a second appeal had been instituted against that decision and was pending in the High Court on the date of the present suit, there were signs of collusion between the Defendants and if the property is made over to the Defendants first-party it would be detrimental to and against the interests of the Hindu public of that locality.;