JUDGMENT:- (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows: One Gopal Lal Dhar has taken out this application dated September 15th, 2008 for his addition to the suit as a plaintiff. His case is that in view of what was said - in the Deed dated August 14th, 1878 (Annexure C) he ought to have been joined as a plaintiff. The relevant portion of the Deed on which he is relying is as follows :- "Till date we did not require a trustee but In future when the number of Sebaits will increase if there be any difference amongst them considering this fact we on this day execute this deed giving directions, pursuant to the said deed of gift, that if in future it becomes necessary to institute suits and to litigate for preserving the said property and any of the Seandaits comes forward of his own initiative to preserve the said property at his own cost then the other Sebaits shall accept him as the legal Trustee and all the work shall be carried on according to his desire and in future the Trustee shall be appointed from his descendants." (2.) The first plaintiff is one of the shebaits, and it is not disputed that Gopal is also one of the shebaits. The first plaintiff, as argued by Mr. Sinha, Counsel for the plaintiffs, instituted the suit in view of the provisions made in the Deed dated August 14th, 1878 stating under what circumstances a shebait instituting suits for preserving the property would be accepted by the other shebaits as the legal trustee. Gopals application is being opposed by the first plaintiff on the principal ground that by taking steps today to get himself added as a plaintiff to the suit filed in the year 1990 Gopal cannot say that he is also entitled to act as the legal trustee. (3.) Mr. Sinha has strongly opposed this application by referring to Gopals conduct that though he was aware of the Deed and the pendency of the suit, he approached this Court after long 18 years. In the reply Gopal has said that he had no knowledge of pendency of the suit. In the application he has said that he acquired knowledge of the suit only from the daily cause list of this Court of April 13, 2005. According to Mr. In the reply Gopal has said that he had no knowledge of pendency of the suit. In the application he has said that he acquired knowledge of the suit only from the daily cause list of this Court of April 13, 2005. According to Mr. Sinha in the present case Gopal cannot assert any right under the Deed dated August 14th, 1878, though the first plaintiff having instituted the suit for preservation of the property acquired a right to say that the other shebaits of the property are bound to accept him as the legal trustee. (4.) In my opinion, the question in the present application is whether Gopal should be added to the suit as a plaintiff. I do not think for the purpose it is necessary to examine whether by instituting the suit the first plaintiff has acquired a right to say that he has become the sole trustee of the property. If he has acquired such right, needless to say that Gopals addition to the suit as a plaintiff will by no means affect his such right. It is not necessary to decide either whether the getting himself added to the suit as a plaintiff Gopal will become entitled to say that he has become a joint trustee with the first plaintiff in terms of the Deed dated August 14th, 1878. (5.) These questions, in my opinion, should not be examined in this application, since this application is to be decided keeping in view only the dispute involved in the suit. The dispute involved in the suit is regarding alleged damage caused by the defendant to the properties belonging to the deities and consequent right of the deities to claim compensation, damages, etc. The first plaintiff, qua a shebait of the property, has sued the defendant seeking compensation and damages, and Gopal has also said that he wants to join the first plaintiff for seeking these reliefs against the defendant. (6.) Hence, in my opinion, if Gopal is added to the suit as a plaintiff, then his such addition will not affect the first plaintiffs any right that has accrued in his favour today. Whether by getting himself added to the suit Gopal will be entitled to assert in future any right under the Deed dated August 14th, 1878 is not the scope of the suit. Whether by getting himself added to the suit Gopal will be entitled to assert in future any right under the Deed dated August 14th, 1878 is not the scope of the suit. Gopals addition will not prevent the first plaintiff from exercising his right, if any, flowing from the Deed dated August 14th, 1878. I am therefore of the view that Gopals prayer for addition should be allowed. (7.) It is to be noted that Mr. Ghosh, Counsel for the defendant, has said that his only objection to Gopals prayer is that by permitting him to be added, if at all, the scope of the suit should not be enlarged. As a matter of fact there is absolutely no scope for that. Gopals addition is only for permitting him to pursue the case of the plaintiffs. (8.) For these reasons, I allow this application and order as follows. Gopal shall be added to the suit as the third plaintiff. The cause papers shall be amended by the department concerned within a fortnight from the date these records are sent down from the Court. Gopals addition shall be without any prejudice to the first plaintiffs any right that has already accrued. All expense of the suit shall be borne by the first and second plaintiffs, and so long as Gopal does not establish his right, if any, that he is entitled to act as a trustee with the first plaintiff, he will not be entitled to ask the first plaintiff to share the expense of the suit. It is made clear that advocate-on-record, if engaged by Gopal separately, shall fully assist the Advocate-on-record and Counsel engaged by the first plaintiff, and shall also co-operate for all purposes. Gopal is ordered to pay to the first plaintiff Rs. 5,400/- costs of this application within a fortnight.