1. These appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) lay challenge to the judgment passed by the first appellate Court dated 27-8-2012 in Regular Civil Appeal No.17/1998 whereby said appeal has been dismissed and the decree passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.57/1980 on 10.12.1997 has been confirmed.

2. Facts:

The dispute between the parties is with regard to recompilation and editing of literature in relation to “Mahanubhav Panth”. The work of editing “Lila Charitra” was assigned to Dr. V. B. Kolte (original defendant No.3). The said work of recompilation was released on 22-11-1978. The plaintiffs who are followers of “Mahanubhav Panth” noticed various glaring omissions, wrong statements, misleading references to the great Saints of said Panth. According to the plaintiffs, the founder of Mahanubhav sect was Shri Chakradhar Swami. The life of Shri Chakradhar Swami was compiled and written by Shri Mahim Bhat in 1196. However, subsequently, said manuscript was lost in the invasion by alien rulers. According to the plaintiffs, devotees of Mahanubhav sect had compiled and written various books on the life of Shri Chakradhar Swami. Accordingly, the great epic “Lila Charitra” came to be written.

3. The plaintiffs, therefore, in representative capacity approached the Civil Court for a decree of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to take note of various glaring omissions, wrong statements, misleading references and injurious submissions that were contained in the edition of “Lila Chatritra” that was compiled by defendant No.3. The plaintiffs also sought prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from further publishing and circulating said work of defendant No.3. Damages for sum of Rs.25,000/- were also claimed from the defendants. Aforesaid suit came to be filed on 17-10-1980.

4. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed their written statement at Exhibit-33. According to said defendants, on 17-1-1974, the Akhil Bhartiya Mahanubhav Parishad had passed a resolution that defendant No.2 Board should edit and publish a volume dealing with the life of Shri Chakradhar Swami and/or Mahanubhav literature. Accordingly, on 4-3-1974, the defendant No.2 – Board accepted the request as made. This work of preparing aforesaid volume was entrusted to the defendant No.3 who was a learned person and an authority on Mahanubhav philosophy and literature. Thereafter, the defendant No.3 undertook aforesaid work and started compilation of said literature. In the meanwhile, in November 1977, the defendant No.2 – Board received a legal notice from Nagdeo Ashram authorities in relation to certain omissions/mistakes in the work of defendant No.3. After considering the same, the work of defendant No.3 came to be published in the year 1980. About three thousand copies of the first edition were printed and sold out within one year. The said defendants, therefore, denied the claim as made in the suit and stated that there was no intention whatsoever of hurting any religious feelings.

5. The defendant No.3 filed his written statement vide Exhibit-38. According to him, he had visited various Ashrams and Maths in Ridhapur, Aurangabad, Samvatsar, Bhusawal, Hyderabad etc. and after securing various manuscripts of different versions of the “Lila Charitra”, the work of compilation had been completed. According to the defendant No.3 he had consulted various Mahants and had deliberations with them. He further stated that he held Shri Chakradhar Swami in high esteem and denied that there were any wrong or misstatements made in the book. It was stated that nothing defamatory was mentioned in the book. It was stated that the plaintiffs had no right to file aforesaid suit so as to stifle publication of various portions of the book. The constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression was also referred to.

6. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs amended the plaint and averred that the defendant N