JUDGMENT SURINDER SARUP, J.—This appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff-respondent in the suit land in any manner. A decree for possession has also been passed for the suit land or a portion thereof by way of demolition of the plinth raised by the defendant-appellant on the same. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is that of Shri C.L. Kochhar, Sub-Judge-lst Class (II), Palampur and that of appellate Court is that of Shri M.R. Chaudhary, District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala dated 16.9.1991. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on the pleadings that he has been authorised by the Managing Committee of Mandir Baba Balak Rupi to file the suit on behalf of the said Committee vide Resolution No. 2 dated 25.7.1988. It was pleaded that the Managing Committee of Mandir Baba Balak Rupi is the owner and in possession of the land fully described in the plaint and as per the details given in the judgments of the Courts below. According to him, the plaintiff-respondent has no right, title or interest in the suit land. It was further pleaded that the defendant is nephew of Kishan Dutt who was one of the members of the Managing Committee and he used to grow flowers plants in the portion of the suit land for the use of the temple. After the death of said Kishan Dutt, the defendant has started interfering in the suit land and has been threatening to construct a pucca structure by claiming that he is owner of the suit land. The Managing Committee requested him not to do so but to no avail; hence the suit. 3. In the written statement, the defendant appellant took up the preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no locus stand! The Managing Committee requested him not to do so but to no avail; hence the suit. 3. In the written statement, the defendant appellant took up the preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no locus stand! nor cause of action to file the present suit; that the same is not maintainable in the present form, that the plaintiff Multan Singh cannot be the plaintiff, as the plaintiff can be the Mandir Balakrupi, hence has no locus standi to sue; that the plaintiff is estopped due to his act and conduct from filing the suit; that the suit is not properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. On merits, it was pleaded that the defendant had succeeded to the property of Krishan Dutt by way of will and now has become owner in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that the defendant is also having his house just adjoining to the disputed construction and his possession is more than 50 years old. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit land is owned and possessed by the defendant on the basis of will as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? . OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? - OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 8. Relief." 6. Issues No, 3 to 7 were decided against the defendant while Issues No. 1,2 and 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff resulting in the suit being decreed. The appeal of the defendant-appellant having been dismissed, he has come in the present second appeal. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record. 8. The only point, which has been urged before me by Shri K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant is that the suit is not maintainable having been filed by Multan Singh in his individual capacity and not on behalf of Mandir Balaka Rupi. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record. 8. The only point, which has been urged before me by Shri K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant is that the suit is not maintainable having been filed by Multan Singh in his individual capacity and not on behalf of Mandir Balaka Rupi. In support of his submissions, he has cited Thakardwara (Pheru Mai of Amritsar) v. Ishar Das and others (AIR 1928 Lahore 375). It has been laid therein that under the law temple is not a judicial person. It was also held that to allow the amendment at the appellate stage might result in all kinds of complications and practically involve a retrial of the suit from the very beginning and so the application cannot be allowed. 9. Relying on this reported judgment of the Lahore High Court, Shri K.D. Sood has submitted that the suit having been filed on behalf of Mandir Balak Rupi but by Multan Singh in his individual capacity is not maintainable. He has also relied on the observations of the Apex Court in the case reported as Bishwanath and another v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji and others (AIR 1967 SC 1044), which has been reproduced in extenso in para 22 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Reliance has also been placed on Kalanka Devi Sansthan v. The Maharashtra Revenue, Tribunal Nagpur and others (AIR 1970 SC 439). 10. On the other hand, Shri Ankush Dass, learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the Resolution Ex. PW-4/A whereby Multan Singh, being the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the temple in question has been authorised to file the suit on its behalf. 11. I have given careful consideration to the respective contentions advanced by the learned Counsel of both the parties. Although, appellant has placed reliance on the provisions of Order 32 C.P.C. yet, this Court is of the considered view that in the circumstances of the case, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is of no avail, it being purely of a technical nature. Although, appellant has placed reliance on the provisions of Order 32 C.P.C. yet, this Court is of the considered view that in the circumstances of the case, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is of no avail, it being purely of a technical nature. No doubt, as held by the Lahore High Court, a temple is not a judicial person but in the present case, I find that the Managing Committee, which can be said to be the body and limbs of the temple, has authorised the present plaintiff to file the suit on behalf of the temple. This being the position, it cannot be said that the suit has been filed by Multan Singh purely in his individual capacity. The case has to be seen from the totality of the circumstances, meaning thereby that Multan Singh stands authorised vide resolution Ex.PW-4/A of the Managing Committee of the temple to file the suit on its behalf. In this view of the matter, the rulings relied on behalf of the defendant-appellant by Shri K.D. Sood are distinguishable. Similarly, in the considered view of this Court, Order 32 of C.P.C. is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. The matter can be looked at from another angle. When objections like the present one, which are purely of a technical nature are raised, the Court has not to go by merely the form of objection but has to see the substance in order to do substantial justice between the parties. Construed in this light, though technically the objection is valid in the present case, but it falls to the ground when seen in the light of the evidence on record, fully discussed and eloborated hereinabove. The suit cannot be thrown out on this technicality, especially when on merits, both the Courts have recorded findings of fact in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, which cannot be challenged or agitated in second appeal. Similarly, the plea that the case should be remanded in order to enable the plaintiff to amend the plaint in the light of the technical objection has no force. This would tantamount to delaying the execution of the decree which has been passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents by the two Courts below. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -