Defendants are the revision petitioners. The revision petition is directed against an order of the trial court allowing amendment of the decree on the application of respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs), in order to make it in conformity with the judgement.

The suit property is a temple and its premises. Plaintiffs claimed that it is a private temple belonging to their family and first plaintiff is the uralan in possession and management. Second plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the premises under a lease arrangement with the first plaintiff. Though it is a private temple plaintiffs admitted the right of defendants and other Hindus of the locality to worship in the temple, but disputed their right to interfere with the possession and management. The suit was for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and the Hindus of the locality, whom they represent, from trespassing and interfering with the management defendants were sued in a representative capacity and publication under O.1, R.8 was made. No interested person got himself impleaded pursuant to the publication.

3. Revision petitioners contended that it is a public temple managed by a public committee in which the predecessor of the first plaintiff was only a member. Defendants claimed to be the office-bearers in management and possession.

4. Though the trial Court held that it is a public temple, the further finding was that the first plaintiff is in possession and management and hence he is entitled to a decree for injunction as prayed for. Accordingly a decree for injunction was passed. But by mistake or oversight it was not specified in the judgement that the decree against the defendants is in their representative capacity. Consequently the decree also was drafted as if it is against the defendants alone.

5. Without applying for amendment of the judgement the plaintiffs sought amendment of the decree alone in order to specify that it is against the defendants in their representative capacity. The trial court which passed the judgement was convinced that it is an accidental omission in the decree and hence the prayer was allowed and the decree corrected. Revision is against that order.

6. The main contention of the revision petitioners was that the decree which is in conformity with the judgement ought not have been allowed to be amended without amending the judgement itself. The general rule is that all person may be joined as plaintiffs in whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transaction is alleged to exit, where if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise and all persons may be joined as defendants against whom any such relief is claimed, where, if separate suits were brought against them any common question of law or fact would arise, though it is not necessary that every defendant should be interested in all the reliefs claimed in the suit. But where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested. When such permission or direction is given by the Court to sue or be sued in a representative capacity the court will have to issue notice at the expenses of the plaintiff of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested. It may be by personal notice or where it is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement.

7. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendants in a representative capacity representing the Hindus of the locality having common interest so far as the temple and premises are concerned. Court granted permission for that purpose and as per orders of court public advertisement was made as provided in O.1, R.8. Order 1, R.8(3) provides that any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted or defended, may apply to