1. This suit was instituted under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act by 3 persons acting in a representative capacity. The decree obtained in the High Court on appeal was for the recovery of a certain sum of money as damages on behalf of the temple. Two out of the three plaintiffs are still alive and there has been no devolution of their interest upon the respondents. The District Judges order does not purport to be one made under Order 22, Rule 10 and it is therefore not necessary for us to consider the applicability The District Judge has ordered the respondents to be brought on the record as decree holders because they represent the temple in their capacity as trustees and because it is in the interests of the trust that the decree should be executed, the original decree holders having neglected to enforce it for over five years.

2. It may be unusual to bring fresh plaintiffs on the record after a decree has been passed, but there is authority for doing so under Order 1, Rule 10 in Vekatchand Lakshmi Chand v. Advocate General (1912) 24 M.L.J. 192 and in Lingammal v. Venkatammal (1910) I.L.R. 33 M. 4.83 : 20 M.L.J. 546 although it might be improper and inconvenient