JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned trial Court thereby the application of non-petitioner Krishna Kumar Sharma for being transposed as plaintiff in place of the original-plaintiff deceased Munni Lal, who was his father and Pujari and Manager of the Temple Murti Shri Bihariji and Hanumanji and its property has been allowed. A suit was filed in the name of idol Murty Shri Bihariji and Hanumanji through Pujari and Manager, Munni Lal Sharma. On the death of Pujari, Munni Lal Sharma, his son, non-petitioner, Krishna Kumar submitted an application for his transposition as plaintiff in the suit. The said application has been allowed by the learned trial Court under the impugned order, which is now being challenged in this revision. It is contended by Shri Bhardwaj that the non-petitioner cannot be transposed as plaintiff as the application was not filed under Order 22, Rule 3, C.P.C. and instead it was preferred under section 151, C.P.C. It is also contended that if being a Public Trust, the non-petitioner cannot be transposed in place of Munni Lal Sharma. I have considered the contentions raised. Earlier to Munnilal, Smt. Bilasi Bai, who was the grand mother of Munni Lal Sharma was managing the temple. After her death, Munni Lal Sharma was serving the idols and was worshipping. The property was being managed by Munni Lal Sharma. The suit was filed in the name of deity through its Pujari and Manager, Munni Lal. During the pendency of the suit, Munni Lal died. Now the property is being managed and worship is being performed by his son Krishna Kumar, the present non-petitioner. In the plaint, itself, it has been averred to be a private temple and not of the Public trust. From the past events, it appears that the right to worship and to manage the property is heritable. From the grand mother, it came to non-petitioner's father and after the death of non-petitioner's father, the non-petitioner is worshipping the idols and managing the property. The wrong mention of the section does not render the application ineffective or unworthy of consideration. The suit is in the name of Idols through its Pujari. After the death of Munni Lal Sharma, it is not disputed that the non-petitioner is worshipping the idols. He is also not disputed to be the son of Munni Lal Sharma. The wrong mention of the section does not render the application ineffective or unworthy of consideration. The suit is in the name of Idols through its Pujari. After the death of Munni Lal Sharma, it is not disputed that the non-petitioner is worshipping the idols. He is also not disputed to be the son of Munni Lal Sharma. The only contention which survives for consideration is whether he is the Manager. As discussed above, the right appears to be heritable. The temple of the Idols is called as the temple of Bilaso Bai, who was the grand mother of non-petitioner's father Munni Lal Sharma. She was worshipping the idols and was managing the property. After her death Munnilal Sharma stepped into her shoes being the grand son and after Munni Lal Sharma, the application filed by the non-petitioner Krishna Kumar Sharma, who is the son of Munni Lal Sharma has been allowed. The learned trial Court has allowed him to become a party and to proceed with the suit. The authorities of Nain Singh v. Kuwarji from the Apex Court reported in 1970 JLJ 544 and of this Court in Raja Ram v. Nand Kishore ( 1975 JLJ 475 ) are not on the point involved in the case and they are of no assistance to the petitioners. In the result, the petition is devoid of substance and is dismissed summarily without notice to other side.