T.N. Singh, J.

1. Although it is an appeal challenging the order passed on 20-2-1990 by the trial Court purporting to act under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, the contentions pressed assailing that order are of far-reaching effect. Maintainability of the suit itself is challenged in this appeal.

2. Apparently, there are two sets of suitors vying with each other to obtain control and management of a place of worship. Admittedly, however, substantial property valued at several lakhs of rupees, according to plaintiffs own case, is the subject-matter of a Trust. At paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent has stated that by registered document executed on 28-11-1901, late Kanhaiyalal had entrusted the Mandir and the property attached thereto to five panchas. How the management of the temple continued thereafter or who were the subsequent trustees during the period of twenty years following death of the settlor is not clearly stated, but at para 4, there is sudden jump to 1956. It is stated that on 19-3-1956, "Managing Committee" had constructed three shops when the Secretary was Durga Prasad who had obtained order on 19-3-1956 from the Municipal Committee.