Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. - (1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiffs-Central Council Radhasoami Satsang and its members, against the judgment and order dated 09th November, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Agra (lower appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2012, Central Council Radhasoami Satsang and others v. Dr. D.K. Hazara, and the order dated 24th February, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 5, Agra (trial Court) in Original Suit No. 223 of 1989, Central Council Radhasoami Satsang v. Dr. Daya Kishore Hazara , allowing the application of the defendant-respondent for abatement of the suit and rejecting the application of the plaintiffs for impleadment of some of the members of the society as plaintiff in the suit.
(2.) The essential facts are that Radhasoami Satsang is a religious institution, which was founded in the year 1861. Later on, Central Council Radhasoami Satsang (or the Central Administrative Council) was created in the year 1902, which is functioning as a perpetual body. The Central Council Radhasoami Satsang, the plaintiff no. 1, instituted a suit, being Original Suit No. 223 of 1989, Central Council Radhasoami Satsang and others v. Dr. D.K. Hazara , in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra for a decree of eviction against the defendant from the premises of the plaintiff. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought therein to restrain the defendant from effecting any change or causing any damage to the suit property occupied by him as an erstwhile licensee, besides the decree for damages. The plaintiff nos. 2 to 22, who were/are members of the plaintiff no. 1, also joined the suit as plaintiffs. Briefly the case of the plaintiffs was that the defendant-respondent is a licensee of Satsang Quarter No. SE-5, situated within the Soami Bagh Compound at Soami Bagh Town Area, Agra, the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the cause of action arose when the defendant-respondent indulged in activities which were regarded and considered by the Council as undesirable.
(3.) During the pendency of the suit, several members of the Council, who were plaintiffs in the suit, expired and in their place fresh members were elected, however, admittedly they were not brought on record with due promptness.;