B.P. Jha, J.

This Civil revision is against an order dated 20th December, 1984.

2. One Surya Shekhar Prasad Sinah instituted a suit against the defendant-petitioner. The plaintiff was the step brother of the defendants-petitioner. The defendant petitioner was appointed as Shebait of the deities. The allegation in the plaint was that the defendant-petitioner was not properly managing the properties. In other words, the main allegation was that the defendant-petitioner should not continued as Shebait as he was spoiling the properties of the deities. The defendant-petitioner has refuted these allegations.

3. This matter arise out of an injunction matter. The trial court refused to grant injunction to the deceased plaintiff, Surya Shekhar Prasad Singh (plaintiff) died during the pendency of the appeal in the appellate court. The lower appellate court allowed the heirs of the deceased plaintiff to prosecute the appeal before the appellate court. The lower appellate court was of opinion that the heirs could be substituted as guardians under Order 32, rule 10 of the Code in Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

4. The point for consideration are as follow:

(1) Whether the heirs of the deceased plaintiff can be substituted for prosecuting the appeal before the lower appellate court?

(2) Whether the heirs of the deceased plaintiff can be substituted for prosecuting the appeal before the lower appellate court?

5. The answer must be given in the affirmative to both the questions. The heirs of the plaintiff can prosecute the case in order to protect the interest of the deities and the properties of the deities. It is in the public interest that the heirs should be substituted to prosecute the case on behalf of the deceased plaintiff,

6. In my opinion, the provisions of order 32, rule 10 of the Code will apply to the present case. The suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff on behalf of the deities in order to protect the interest of the deities as well as their properties. The allegation was that the defendant-petitioner was not managing the properties of the deities properly. Therefore, such a suit can be filed on behalf of the deities, If it is so, then the provisions of Order 32, rule 10 of the Code will apply and the heirs of the deceased plaintiff can be substituted in place of the plaintiff in this case.

7. Leaned Counsel for the petitioners draw my attention to the propositions propounded by Shree B.K. Mukherjee in his books” The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust” 2nd edition, at page 249, in the following words:

“(1) An idol is a juristic person in whom the title to the properties of the endowment vests. But it is only in an ideal sense that the idol is the owner. It has to Act, through human agency, and the agent is the Shebait, who is, in law, the person entitled to take proceeding on its behalf The personality of the idol might, therefore, be said to be merged in that of the Shebait.

(2) Where, however, the Shebait refuses to Act, for the idol, or where the suit is to challenge the Act, of the Shebait himself prejudicial to the interest of the idol, then there must be some other agency which much have the right to Act, for the idol. The law accordingly recognizes a right in persons interested in the endowment to take proceeding on behalf of the idol.” (See the case of Bishwanath and another v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji and others)

8. On a perusal of the above-mentioned propositions it is clear that some agency can also file a suit on behalf of the deities in order to protect the interest of the deities. In other words, a person other than Shetbait can also file a suit, In the present case, Surya Sankar Prasad Sinha filed the suit on behalf of the deities (although the deities are not mentioned in the plain) in order to protect their interest. Such a suit will be deemed to have been filed on behalf on the deities. If it is so the provisions of Order 32, rule 10 of the Code will be applicable. If the pr