1. Judgment-debtor has appealed against the judgment and order of the 6th Additional District Judge, Patna, affirming the judgment and order of the Munsif, Patna City, permitting the Special Officer of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board to be added as a party to the execution proceeding in place of decree-holders to execute the decree on behalf of Sarva Mangala Devi Trust.

2. A public trust known as Sarva Mangala Devi Turst represented through its trustees, filed Title Suit No. 274/76 against the appellant and others for a decree of possession after removal of impediments, if any, and damages for use and occupation of the suit premises. The suit was decreed on 13-11-1976. The trustees filed execution case No. 24/77 for execution of the said decree. On 16-3-1981 a petition was filed on behalf of the Special Officer, Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board for being added as a party to the execution proceeding in place of the decree-holder contending that two of the trustees, namely, Dhanesh Chandra Choudhary and Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal had gone in collusion with the defendant judgment debtor and were acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the trust and had been removed accordingly by the Board for their misconduct. Judgment-debtor contested the claim of the Board on the ground, inter alia, that in the suit the Board was a party defendant and the decree had been obtained by the trustees on behalf of Sarva Mangala Devi Trust; Special Officer of the Board could not claim any interest of the trust by claiming substitution in place of the trustees; execution could proceed only at the instance of the decree-holders and not at the instance of a person who has got no claim of inheritance, assignment or any other right or interest in the trust.

3. Learned Munsif accepted the claim of the Special Officer of the Board and allowed him to execute the decree on behalf of the trust subject to the payment of the cost of Rs. 50/-. Judgment-debtor appealed against the said order of the learned Munsif and the 6th Additional District Judge, who finally heard the appeal found that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and no appeal lay against the same but also considered the relevant questions on merits and concluded in favour of the Special Officer of the Board. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by him. Judgment debtor has moved this Court thereafter.

4. Learned counsel for the parties contested each others contentions on the question as to whether the addition of a party or transposition of a party defendant in place of the decree-holder, is an appealable order or not. While learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order permitting the Special Officer to execute the decree amounts to modifying the original decree in favour of the trustees and is thus a decree in itself, learned counsel for the respondent Board has contended that the impugned order may be one deciding the case or issue but in no way is an order modifying a decree, which although, obtained at the instance of the trustees, is one in favour of the deities and the trust and whether it is executed by the trustees or the Special Officer of the Board in lieu of the trustees, it is evidently for and on behalf of the decree-holder, namely, the trust. He has also submitted that a trust can be represented by its next friend and under the scheme of the law of the State, the Board is the ultimate custodian of the interest of the trust.

5. Sec. 47 of the Civil P. C. requires the Court executing decree to determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Sub-section (3) of Sec. 47 says that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party such question shall, for the purposes of the said section, be determined by the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has contend