Order 22 of the CPC does not apply to the substitution of trustees in a suit filed by a public trust because the trustees are not suing in their personal capacities but are representing the public trust.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16/7/1998, passed by 14th Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 328-A/94. The disposal of this revision shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 1631 of 1998, as learned Counsel for both the parties agreed that an identical order has been passed by the trial Court in that case.

2. Shri Parasnath Digamber Jain Bada Mandir, Hanumantal, Jabalpur is a registered public trust, it filed a suit through its trustees for ejectment against the applicant under the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The two trustees S.S. Harishchand Jain and S.S. Nirmalchand Jain died during he pendency of the civil suit, therefore, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure was made to delete the name of S.S. Harishchand Jain and in his place the name of Santosh Kumar Jain was to be added as a trustee who was elected newly. Similarly, instead of S.S. Nirmalchand Jain, his son Yogendra Kumar was sought to be added as a newly elected trustee. This application has been allowed by the trial Court rejecting the application of the applicant to the effect that Order 22 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure was applicable and Santosh Kumar Jain and Yogendra Kumar could not have been added as Plaintiffs to the suit without following the procedure provided by Order 22 of the CPC.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant, in this revision, argued that Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure and Order 6 Rule 17 thereof are wholly inapplicable as the original Plaintiffs S.S. Harishchand Jain and S.S. Nirmalchand Jain had died long back and their legal representatives were not brought on record as per Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.

4. Learned Counsel for the non-applicants, on the other hand, argued that Order 22 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure would not apply to the facts of this case, as the trustees have not filed the suit in their personal capacities, but they have been made parties to the plaint by virtue of their offices of tustees. S.S. Harishchand Jain and S.S. Nirmalchand Jain had no personal interest in the matter and after their death, they simply ceased to be trustees and new trustees were being substituted as per law by way of election. As soon as they were elected, they were brought on record by way of amendment in the plaint.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that this revision is liable to be dismissed. The suit for ejectment was filed on behalf of Shri Parasnath Digamber Jain Bada Mandir, the non-applicant No. 1 against the applicant. The non-applicant No. 1 is a public trust, registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act. The other non-applicants are the trustees. Order 31 Rule 1 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure provides that in a suit filed on behalf of the beneficiary against a third person, the trustees can represent the person beneficially interested in the trust. Ordinarily a trust is not necessary party to the suit. The discretion has been conferred on the Court to order that all or any of the trustees be joined as a party. Howerver, the representative character of the suit is not lost. The rule of Order 31 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure shall govern the case at hand.

6. That apart, we may examine the nature of a trust in order to find out if any of the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure come into play. A trust is created for the benefit of beneficiary. In case of public trusts, the general public has a beneficial interest in the trust property. The trust property vests in a trustee so that trustee looks after it and exercises the rights of a owner in relation to third parties for and on behalf of the beneficiary. Since the property vests in a trustee, he cannot be clubbed with an agent. In fact, a trust is an example of duplicate ownership. A t