M. P. Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendants' revision under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and order dated 24-8-1974, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Allahabad.
(2.) FIVE persons, namely, Raja Ram, Masuriyadin, Gajadhar Prasad, Ram Lal and Bahadur Lal, who are plaintiff-opposite parties, filed a suit after obtaining permission of the Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh, under Section 92 CPC against the defendant-revisionists nos. 1 to 5 alleging that they are the trustees but they are not managing the property properly and are liable to be removed. It was prayed that after removing these five trustees, new trustees may be appointed. Defendants nos. 1 to 5 filed their written statements contesting the suit inter-alia on the grounds that Ram Lal, plaintiff, who had also obtained permission from the Advocate General had not signed the plaint and the suit cannot be said to have been instituted by him and that the trust property was managed by a registered society through a committee consisting of seven members including the five defendants and as no permission under sec. 92 CPC was obtained against the society and these two members the suit is not maintainable. After the said defence the plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaint by impleading the registered Society as well as the remaining two other members of the committee. The application was allowed and the society and these two persons were arrayed as defendants nos. 6 to 8.
(3.) THE defendants nos. 1 to 5 moved an application (73-C) for dismissal of the suit on the aforesaid grounds. THE defendants nos. 6 and 7 also moved a similar application, 74-C. THE learned Additional District Judge Allahabad disposed of these points as preliminary issues. He left the first point to be decided, lateron and negatived the second contention by holding that the suit was not bad for want of permission against the newly impleaded defendants. THE defendants have therefore, come up in revision. So far as the first point is concerned the learned lower court has not disposed it of so far. It will be decided later on as a result of enquiry. Therefore, the revisionists can have no ground to come up in revision against it.;