- (1.) PLAINTIFF No.1 -Radhasoami Satsangh Sabha, Dayalbagh, Agra of Original Suit No.1 of 1943 has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 16th May, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.4, Agra by which application dated 23rd July, 2012 [Paper No.1915(C)], filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer that the Trial Court need not try those issues framed by the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 21st October, 1965 which are covered by the 41 issues decided earlier by the Trial Court in judgment and decree dated 5th July, 1961 and to give findings only on the remaining issues framed by the Supreme Court, has been rejected. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 4th July, 2013 by which the application filed by the plaintiffs for review of the aforesaid order has been rejected.
(2.) IT transpires from the records that while deciding Civil Appeal No.385 of 1965 and Civil Appeal No.666 of 1965 filed by Radhasoami Satsangh Sabha on 21st October, 1965, the Supreme Court, with the consent of the parties, allowed the plaintiffs to amend the the plaint and framed 49 issues contained in SCHEDULE -A for findings by the Trial Court with a direction that after the evidence has been recorded, the Trial Court should make it own findings and submit the same to the High Court and the observations are : - "The result of these orders, in substance, is that several persons will now be added as defendants to the suit and between them and the original plaintiffs, the issues to which we have already referred, will have to be tried. In trying these issues, it would be convenient if the trial court first examines the question as to whether the added defendants are bound by the findings already recorded by the trial court when suit was tried between the plaintiffs and the defendants who were originally parties to it. One of the points which has been urged before us by the plaintiffs is that though the added defendants were not formally parties to the suit, they knew about the suit and in fact, took active part in assisting the defendants, who were impleaded. The contention is that by this conduct, the added defendants would be precluded from saying that they are not bound by the findings recorded at the earlier stage. On the other hand, the defendants who were impleaded to the suit, as well as the added defendants have seriously disputed the validity and correctness of the contention raised by the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs succeed in satisfying the trial court that the added defendants are bound by the findings already recorded, the issues in respect of which the said findings have already been recored, will not have to be tried again. On the other hand, if the trial court finds that the added defendants are not bound by the said findings, the sad issues as well as the other issues now included in the list of issues, will have to be tried. The present orders which are based on the consent order passed on the 16th August, 1965, really mean that additional parties have been allowed to be joined as added defendants by permitting the plaintiffs to amend their plaint. The original defendant and the added defendants have been allowed to file their written statement, and issue arising on these pleadings have been framed. When these issues are tried, the trial court will record its findings on them and these findings will be forwarded to the High Court. At this stage, the High Court will deal with First Appeals No.239 and 301 of 1961 which are now pending before it. The consequence of the present orders is that the two appeals at present pending before the High Court would be stayed and the trial court would be directed to try the new issues, make its findings on them, and submit the said findings to the High Court. Then the High Court would be able to try the appeals comprehensively so as to determine all points in controversy between the plaintiffs and the original defendants as well as the plaintiffs and the added defendants. ................................. Before we parting with these appeals, we would venture to express the hope that the parties would cooperate with the trial court in the expeditious trial of the fresh issues and would assist in the early determination of the present litigation. We ought to add that when the learned counsel appearing for all the parties took an order by consent on the 16th August, 1965, they assured us that all the parties would make an earnest endeavorer to expedite the further disposal of the proceedings which would follow as a result of the present orders. The result is, by consent the appeals before us are allowed, the plaintiffs are allowed to amend the plaint subject to the modifications indicated in the course of this judgment and add the members of the council as additional defendants to their plaint. The amended plaint and the written statements filed by the parties are taken on record and the 49 issues (list appended as 'Schedule A' to this judgment) arising form these pleadings have been framed for findings by the trial court with a direction that the trial court should set down the hearing of the issues in questions at an early date and after the evidence has been recorded, the trial court should make its own findings and submit the same to the High Court. On receipt of these findings by the High Court, parties would be at liberty to file their objections, if any, thereafter. First Appeal Nos.239 and 301 of 1961 should be taken up for hearing and dealt with in accordance with law. Costs of the present appeal as well as the costs of the trial of new issues will abide the result of First Appeals no.239 and 301 of 1961 in the High Court."
(3.) ISSUE No.21 that is contained in the 49 issues framed by the Supreme Court is as follows: - "21. Are the defendants 14 to 36 bound by the judgment and decree in this suit dated 5th July, 1961 or any proceedings resulting in the said decree - When the matter went back to the Trial Court, it was contended by the plaintiffs that if finding on aforesaid Issue No.21 is given in the affirmative, then other issues, new or old, were not required to be tried, while the contention of the newly added defendant nos.14 to 36 was that irrespective of the finding on Issue No.21 all the issues, both old and new, had to be tried as between the plaintiffs and themselves. Their further contention was that in any event, all the remaining 48 issues had to be tried even if Issue No.21 was decided against them.;