JUDGMENT Bodilly, J. - I think this suit must proceed. The case really resolves itself into what is the meaning of the pleadings. I propose not to discuss the cases now. 2. Looking at the plaint as it stands, the first allegation is that the Chinese community of Calcutta as a whole is divided into two sections, shoe makers and carpenters, and the plaint goes on to allege that the Defendant has sought as of right to exclude one of those two sections of that community and that the Plaintiff MacMochi's attention was called to a notice, which was affixed to the walls of the temple built at No. 17, Tiretta Bazar, in Calcutta, preventing the Puntis from entering the temple. 3. That being so it seems to me it is not unreasonable for the Plaintiff MacMochi to allege, as he has alleged, and to ask, as he has asked, that he as a member of the Punti community is entitled not only as a member of that community but as a member of the Chinese community to worship at the temple. 4. If that is so, and he has been excluded, it seems to me that his private right of worship at the temple has been infringed. 5. According to the cases cited, if he has a private right of that kind, which is infringed, an action will lie under sec. 539 of the Civil Procedure Code. The mere result that there are other persons besides himself and those persons associated with him as co-Plaintiffs will be affected docs not take away the right of an individual to sue under sec. 539. 6. The words of that section contemplate that there are other persons besides those permitted to sue who will be affected. 7. I do not for a moment say that the point is free from doubt. I wish there was a procedure by which the matter could be dealt with by the Court of Appeal at once, but there is no interlocutory appeal. I shall go on and hear the case. Mr. Jackson 8. There can be an appeal on the point that the suit is not maintainable. Mr. Sinha 9. If the case is adjourned my friend can appeal against this if he is so advised. Besides we have not got an Interpreter at present. Bodilly, J. 9. I shall go on and hear the case. Mr. Jackson 8. There can be an appeal on the point that the suit is not maintainable. Mr. Sinha 9. If the case is adjourned my friend can appeal against this if he is so advised. Besides we have not got an Interpreter at present. Bodilly, J. 9. I think it would be eminently desirable, but this is not a final judgment I have given. I express no opinion as to whether the Defendant has any right to appeal. Mr. Sinha 10. They have raised the point that the Defendant is not the only trustee, but he has not mentioned the name of any other trustee in his written statement. If there are other trustees we must bring them on the record. I have no objection to the case being adjourned with liberty to either side to mention it. Bodilly, J. Very well.