JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu on 2.6.2015, whereby he dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for passing appropriate orders. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to this application is that Devta “Shree Trijugi Naraya Ji” a Hindu deity, having its abode in village Diar of District Kullu, was owning lands in Kothi Bhallan. Chune Ram, the father of defendants-petitioners was Kardar of the deity. He executed a permanent lease on nominal lease money, in favour of his own sons, i.e. defendants-petitioners. The deity filed suit through Sh.Jai Chand, next friend and challenged the lease on the ground that the Kardar acted contrary to the interest of the deity, and it was, therefore, not binding on the deity. 3. The petitioners-defendants contested the suit on the ground that the money was required for the construction of temple, as such, the Kardar, their father, validly executed lease deed to raise money. 4. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Manali, camp at Kullu and in appeal the judgment and decree was set aside on the ground that the trial court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, inasmuch as the valuation of the suit was Rs.80.00 lacs, if not more. The plaint was ordered to be returned to the respondents for filing in the competent court. 5. Matter was taken to this court vide FAO No.446 of 2007 by the respondents and this court held that valuation of the suit for jurisdiction was around Rs.8.00 lacs and since no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the petitioners by entertaining the suit by the Civil Judge, appeal of the respondents was allowed and the matter was remitted to the learned first appellate court to hear the appeal on merits. 6. The order passed by this court was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the SLP was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2014. 7. 6. The order passed by this court was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the SLP was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2014. 7. Petitioners thereafter filed an application for passing appropriate orders with the averments that the suit was filed by the deity through Jai Chand, his next friend and since Jai Chand had died when the FAO was pending before this court and no application for bringing on record his L.Rs had been filed, therefore, suit of the plaintiffs stood abated in its entirety before this court and consequently the judgment passed by this court in FAO No. 446 of 2007 itself was nullity and, therefore, suit was not maintainable. 8. The application was contested by the respondents wherein it was averred that Jai Chand was Pujari-worshiper of the deity. The suit was filed by the deity and not by Jai Chand and, therefore, non bringing of his L.Rs on record was inconsequential since interest of the deity was duly protected and represented by Sh. Tikkam Ram and Bhawani Singh, plaintiffs-respondents. 9. The learned court below dismissed the application on the grounds that a Hindu deity is a juristic person, capable of suing and being sued in its own name. It can own properties and since it is a juristic person, it requires a natural person to represent itself in a court of law. It was further held that it was settled law that even worshiper can act as next friend for the deity who merely represents the minor plaintiff in the court. He, in no manner, is the plaintiff, but only represents the deity, so when a next friend dies, there is no necessity of bringing his L.Rs on record and what at most can be done is that any other person can act as next friend for the minor. So there was no question of abatement of the suit on account of non bringing on record the L.Rs of the next friend. 10. It was also held that keeping in view the averments contained in paras 3 and 4 of the plaint, where in it was specifically averred that Sh. Tikkam Ram and Sh.Bhawani Singh are “Hariyaans” of the deity and have beneficial interest in the management of the property of the deity. 10. It was also held that keeping in view the averments contained in paras 3 and 4 of the plaint, where in it was specifically averred that Sh. Tikkam Ram and Sh.Bhawani Singh are “Hariyaans” of the deity and have beneficial interest in the management of the property of the deity. Therefore, even on account of death of Jai Chand, deity could be represented by the aforesaid two persons, especially the status of “Hariyaans” had been admitted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 11. Sh.Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned order is against law and facts that the court below has committed material illegality, irregularity and impropriety in passing the orders. He further argued that once Jai Chand, who was the next friend of the plaintiffs had died, it was imperative that his L.Rs be brought on record and having failed to do so, the suit abated as a whole. 12. I find no merit in these submissions for the simple reason that the learned counsel has failed to draw a distinction between a party and a representative of a party in a suit. It cannot be disputed that an idol i.e. “Devta” is treated as a juristic person with a legal personality capable of holding and acquiring property. It, therefore, follows that the suit instituted by a representative for the time being on its behalf is properly constituted and cannot abate under the provisions of order 22 of CPC on the death of the representative representing the idol as the real party to the suit is the idol or Devta. The ownership is in the institution or the idol. From its very nature, an idol can act and assert its right only through human agency. 13. A similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir & ors, AIR 1980 SC 707 and it was held as under: “84-85. According to the Hindu jurisprudence, a religious institution such as a math is treated as a juristic entity with a legal personality capable of holding and acquiring property. 13. A similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir & ors, AIR 1980 SC 707 and it was held as under: “84-85. According to the Hindu jurisprudence, a religious institution such as a math is treated as a juristic entity with a legal personality capable of holding and acquiring property. It, therefore, follows that the suit instituted by the mahant for the time being, on its behalf, is property constituted and cannot abate under the provisions of O. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the death of the mahant pending the decision of the suit or appeal, as the real party to the suit is the institution or the idol. From its very nature, math or an idol can act and assert its right only through human agency known as mahant, shebait or dharmakarta or sometimes known as trustee. 86. Jenkins, C.J. in Babajirav V. Luxmandas, (1904) ILR 28 Born 215 at p. 223 defines the true notion of the “math” in the following terms: “A math, like an idol, is in Hindu Law a judicial person capable of acquiring holding and vindicating legal rights, though of necessity it can only act in relation to those rights through the medium of some human agency.” It follows that merely because the mahant for the time being dies and is succeeded by another mahant, the suit does not abate.” 14. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it can safely be concluded that upon the death of next friend of the idol, the suit cannot abate as the real party to the suit is the idol who is a juristic person. The ownership vests in the idol and not in the representative of the idol and, therefore, the learned court below committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear the costs. Interim order dated 9.6.2015 is vacated and pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of.