The revisionists in this Court are aggrieved by the order of interim injunction passed in a suit filed by the respondents. The respondents, in their suit, impugned the decree obtained by the revisionists in Civil Suit No. 27 of 1963, passed by the Subordinate Judge II, Manipur, which was finally affirmed by this Court and it is submitted that the Supreme Court also affirmed this Courts decision. The revisionists complain that though they were impleaded, according to the plaintiffs, as defendants 1 to 7, they were not described properly. Because, in the decree obtained by them they were described in a different manner. Accordingly, they did not enter appearance in the suit, but they filed an application to be added as a party in the injunction proceedings and the prayer was accepted and they were accordingly impleaded therein and heard.

2. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that the revisionists had obtained the decree by practising fraud on the Court and by not impleading them therein and the said decree was not, therefore, binding on the plaintiffs. By the impugned decree, the revisionists obtained the declaration that they were Shebaits of the deity Gopinath and they had