In a suit filed u/s. 92 of the Code, any other person can be added as a defendant without the previous sanction of the Advocate-General, if such addition does not alter the nature of the suit.

GURNAM SINGH, J.

1. After obtaining sanction of the Advocate-General, Punjab, u/s. 92, C. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), Bara Hanuman Temple Durgian (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) through Durga Dass and Tilak Raj sons of L. Paras Ram who was the founder of the trust, filed the suit for the appointment of Gurbux Lal Malhotra, Gauri Shankar Sharma and Madan Lal Khanna as trustees of the Temple, which is a religious and charitable trust, as all the three trustees appointed by Sh. Paras Ram had died. In that suit, one, Gur Parshad filed an application under O. 1, R. 10 of the Code, for being impleaded as a defendant, alleging that he along with Rattan Chand and Shori Lal had been managing the Temple for the last four years and nine months, that after the death of Rattan Chand, he and Shori Lal had been continuing to manage the Temple as trustee managers and that after the death of Shori Lal, which took place in Feb., 1974, he alone managed the Temple and was in possession of its properties. He further alleged that the suit filed a collusive one and has been filed with a view to grab the administration of the Temple and that in his absence the suit could not be decided effectively and completely. The trial Sub Judge accepted the application of Gur Parshad and ordered the plaintiff to implead him as one of the defendants in the plaint. Being aggrieved with the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge for impleading Gur Parshad, as one of the defendants, the plaintiff came up in revision to this Court which was heard by Hon ble the Chief Justice. After hearing the parties, the Hon ble the Chief Justice, feeling that important legal issues are involved in the case, referred the matter to a larger Bench and that is haw this Civil Revision No. 854 of 1976 has come up before us.

2. The order of the learned Senior Sub Judge impleading Gur Parshad as a defendant in the case has been challenged by the plaintiff on the following three main grounds :

(i) the Advocate-General having recorded a finding at the time of granting permission to sue u/s. 92 of the Code to the effect that "Rattan Chand had no authority under the law to join Shri Gur Parshad and Shri Shori Lal as co-trustees", the Court has no jurisdiction to permit Gur Parshad being joined as a defendant to the suit;

(ii) Permitting the impleading of Gur Parshad as defendant in the suit amounts to going behind the sanction of the Advocate-General and no suit u/s. 92 can be allowed to be maintained against any person against whom permission to sue has not been granted by the Advocate-General; and

(iii) Gur Parshad respondent has no locus standi to claim to be added as a defendant. He is not a necessary party to the suit, and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to be added as a defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff-petitioner who is dominus litus and has control of the suit.

3. Admittedly Gur Parshad was not a trustee appointed by L. Paras Ram, the founder of the trust. The contention of Gur Parshad is that he had been managing the properties of the Temple along with L. Rattan Chand, that even after the death of L. Rattan Chand, he continued to do so since Feb., 1974 and is in possession of the properties of the Temple, that he had been defending some legal proceedings in which the plaintiff was a party and, therefore, he is very much concerned and interested in the present suit and that the suit cannot be effectively and completely decided without his presence.

4. At the time when the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, decided the application of Sarvashri Durga Dass and Tilak Raj sons of L. Paras Ram, u/s. 92, C. P. C., L. Rattan Chand, one of the trustees appointed by Lala Paras Ram was alive. Lala Rattan Chand had put in an application in reply, in which he had stated that Shri Gur Parshad was taken as a co-manager in place of Shri Bansi Dhar and Sh. Shori Lal and Sh. Gur Parshad were managing the affairs of the Temple. It was in this background, tha