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. 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 plaint, it is averred that Swami Sudarshanacharya had during his life- time got a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act (Act 21 of 1980) in the name and style of `Sudarshan Dharma Setu Samiti'. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, it is averred that Swami Sudarshanacharya had during his life- time got a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act (Act 21 of 1980) in the name and style of `Sudarshan Dharma Setu Samiti'. It was however averred that the aforesaid society could not be registered under that Act, and the registration of the society could in no way affect the property or affairs of the deity. In paragraph 10 of the plaint there is an averment that the defendants informed Swami Rangacharya, plaintiff No. 2 that the registered society was similar to the Samiti constituted under the will. In paragraph 14 of the plaint, it was alleged that Nathmal Ji Somani, deft. No. 2 became antagonistic to the plaintiff No. 2, and prevailed upon Swami Rangacharya, plaintiff No. 2 to call a meeting, and to appoint Rameshwar Prasad, Basudeo Somani and Swami Madhvacharya as members of the Samiti in place of Raja Laxmi Lal Ji Pitti, Gajadhar Ji Somani and Swami Ramanujacharya. The plaintiff goes on to state that he took legal advice and was informed that the society could not be registered and all the acts and meetings of the society were illegal, and without effect. In paragraph 14 it is stated that Swami Rangacharya, plaintiff No. 2 called a meeting of the existing members of the Samiti constituted under the will, but the meeting was not attended by defendants 2 to 6. In paragraph 17 of the plaint, it is stated that on 17-7-1980 in a meeting held of the members of the Samiti appointed under the will Om Prakash Ji Bhatt, Ravi Shankar Ji Kaushal and Mrityanjai Pandey were appointed as members in place of Swami Ramanujacharya, Gajadhar Ji Somani and Raja Laxmi Lal. The plaint then goes on to state that the defendants were calling meetings of the registered society which had no legal existence, and were passing resolutions and taking actions prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that certain monies belonging to the deity were deposited in Banks in Bombay, and the defendants were convening meetings in order to injure the interest of the plaintiff, and to withdraw the amounts from the Banks in Bombay. It was alleged that certain monies belonging to the deity were deposited in Banks in Bombay, and the defendants were convening meetings in order to injure the interest of the plaintiff, and to withdraw the amounts from the Banks in Bombay. It was asserted that a meeting could he convened by only Swami Rangacharya, and that too at the head office, which was situate in Hardwar, and at no other place. The plaintiff claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from holding any meeting or doing any act, which would directly or indirectly affect the properties of the deity or interfere with the working of Swami Rangacharya as a Sarvakar. The trial court granted the injunction. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Civil Judge. The appellate authority held that Swami Sudarshanacharya had nominated Swami Rangacharya as his successor as Sarvakar and Sebait by a will, which was executed earlier to the registration of the society. It also held that inasmuch as the entire property had been dedicated by the founder to the deity before the execution of the will Swami Sudarshanacharya could only lay down the line of succession of the Sarvakar, and could impose no other restriction on his successor Sarvakar, as regards the management of the property and affairs of the deity. It also held that it was doubtful as to whether a religious society could be registered tinder the Societies' Registration Act, and inasmuch as it was clear that Swami Rangacharya was appointed as the Sarvakar by Swami Sudarshanacharya by his will, he alone had the right to call meeting of the Samiti constituted under the will, and the defts, could not as such interfere with his functions. The injunction order restraining the defts. from calling any meeting, passed by the trial court was confirmed also on the consideration that it was intimately connected with the management of the property of the deity. 3. Sri Jagdish Swarup appearing on behalf of the defts, has contended that the view of the appellate authority to the effect that Swami Sudarshanacharya could only appoint a successor Sarvakar is patently incorrect, inasmuch as there was restriction on the right of the founder to nominate a Sarvakar after his death, and also to lay down as to how the dedicated property was to be managed. It was as such contended that even if the plaintiffs case was accepted, no injunction could be issued against the members of the Samiti constituted under the will. 4. It was next submitted that the provisions of O. 39 R. 2(d) of the C. P. C. bar the court from granting an injunction affecting the internal management of affairs of a society. It was contended that neither the members of the Samiti constituted under the will nor the members of the society could ke restrained by an injunction, in view of Order 39 R. 2(d) of the C P C. 5. Sri B.D. Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff very fairly conceded that as Swami Rangacharya had been appointed as Sebait by a will he was bound by its terms and the members of the Samiti appointed under the will could exercise all powers given to them under that document, and plaintiff No. 2 was bound to comply with the directions given by the members of the Samiti. He however, contended that meeting could be convened only at head office at Hardwar by the Sarvakar, i.e. Swami Rangacharya, and the meetings held by the members of the Samiti on their own were not binding on the plaintiff. 6. So far as G. 39 R. 2(d) is concerned, it was contended on his behalf, that the word `society' occurring in that clause has to be interpreted so as to apply only to educational societies, and not societies in general. This contention is founded on the rule of `ejusdem generis', i.e. companionship rule. 7. Now, it is clear that an injunction has been issued to members of the Samiti constituted under the will, who are also members of the society registered under the Societies' Registration Act. It was pointed out on behalf of the plaintiff that on account of the society not seeking renewal of its registration, the society had become an unregistered society. This however, is not very material, as O. 39 R. 2 refers to a society without insisting that a society should be a registered one. In Black's Law Dictionary the following meaning has been given to the word `society' : "SOCIETY - An association or company of persons (generally unincorporated) united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose. In Black's Law Dictionary the following meaning has been given to the word `society' : "SOCIETY - An association or company of persons (generally unincorporated) united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose. In a wider sense, the community or public; the people in general." Now, if this general meaning is adopted the members of the Samiti constituted under the will as also the members of unregistered society would be a society, for they form an association of persons by mutual consent for a common purpose, i.e. for looking after the affairs of the deity and its properties. The question however arises as to whether a restricted meaning should be given to the word `society' under O. 39 R. 2(d). The proviso may be extracted here : "to affect the internal management or affairs of, any educational institution including a University, or a society." It will be seen that the proviso prohibits the grant of an injunction so as to affect the internal management or affairs of any educational institution including a University or a society. If the intention of the Legislature was to confine the word `society' to an educational society alone, the word `society' would be a surplusage for such a society would be covered by the word 'educational institution'. It is also relevant to note that the word `or' which is a disjunctive separates educational institution including a University from a society. Thus, it is not possible to agree with the contention made on behalf of the plaintiff that only educational societies are covered by O. 39 R. 2(d). In my view the word `society' has been used so as to include societies of all description whether registered or not. 8. Thus, even on the assumption that the society could not be registered under the Societies' Registration Act, its members constituted a society as generally understood, and in any event the members of the samiti constituted under the will form a society on account of the fact that they acted as members of the Samiti after the death of Swami Sudarshanacharya with the object of managing the properties and affairs of the deity as envisaged under the will. Thus, in view of O. 39 R. 2(d) of the C. P. C. no interim injunction could be issued in the circumstances of the case for the order interferes with the internal management and affairs of the society. 9. The writ petition succeeds. The order of injunction passed by the courts below is set aside. There shall be no orders as to costs.