ORDER

C.S.P. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against an interim injunction issued against the nine petitioners in a suit filed by opposite parties 1 & 2.

2. The opposite party No. 2 to the petition is a deity, and opposite party No. 1 is the Sarvakar and Sabait of the deity. The deity and Swami Rangacharya, the Sarvakar and Sebait have filed suit No. 64 of 1980 in the court of the Munsif, Hardwar. The present petitioners were arrayed as parties as defendants. The first defendant, according to the plaint was an unregistered society, and the remaining, members of that society. It was alleged in the plaint that Swami Sudarshanacharya had purchased a piece of land, and built a temple, and installed a deity, who is opposite party No. 2 in the petition, and plaintiff No. 1 in the suit. All these properties had been dedicated by Swami Sudarshanacharya to the deity, and he remained a Sarvakar and Sebait of the deity during his lifetime. On 15-6-1963 he executed a registered will and appointed Swami Rangacharya to be the Sarvakar and Sebait after his death. A reference at this stage may be made to the will, which is Annexure 11 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2, who were plaintiffs in the suit. The will after the recital of the fact that the deity had been duly installed goes on to state that as the testator has reached a ripe age, it was necessary to make provision for the worship of the deity, and the management of the properties of the deity. He constituted a committee, and nominated Swami Rangacharya as the prospective Sarvakar and Secretary. Thereafter eight other persons were nominated by him to be the members of the committee, they were Laxmi Kant Piti, Ramanujacharya, Gajadhar Somani, Nathmal Somani, Babban Misra, Amar Nath, Ram Krishna Somani and Badri Narayan Acharya. The will expressly stated that till such time Swami Sudarshanacharya is alive, he will look after the management, and the committees will exercise its power after his death. Provisions were made for filling up the vacancies of members of the committee and that of the Sarvakar in the event of certain contingencies. So far as the Sarvakar was concerned, the right of nominating the new Sarvakar was given to the person who would succeed Swami Sudarshanacharya as the Sebait. Clause 2 of the will named the committee as the `Sudarshan Dharma Setu Samiti'. Clause 7 of the will enjoined the Secretary, i.e., Swami Rangacharya to call the meetings of the committee after due notice. Clause eight of the will laid down the duties and powers of the committee. It enjoined the members of the committee to make arrangements for the daily worship etc. of the deity, and to utilise the property and other income, which may be received by donation or otherwise for the purposes of the deity, and the Sarvakar was enjoined to follow the direction given by the Samiti. In the later part of clause eight a provision was made for advice being given by the committee to the Sarvakar and in case the advice given was not followed by the Sarvakar, the committee was given the power to remove the Sarvakar and to appoint another Sarvakar. Clause nine of the will prohibited the committee from interfering with the day to day management of the affairs of the committee by the Sarvakar. It also enjoined that the Sarvakar would be bound by the advice given by the committee regarding the management and improvement of the dedicated property. It is not necessary in the present case to refer to other portions of the will. It is not disputed by the plaintiffs opposite parties that Nathmal Ji Somani, petitioner No. 2, Babban Ji Misra, petitioner No. 3, Amar Nath Ji Agarwal, petitioner No. 4, Badri Narayanacharya, petitioner No. 5 are the members of the Samiti appointed under the will. It is now necessary to come back to the (sic) it is averred that Swami Ramanujacharya and Gajadhar Ji Somani had died during the life- time of Swami Sudarshanacharya. In paragraph 8 of the