( 1 ) RULE. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective respondents waive service.

( 2 ) CONSIDERING the controversy between the parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.

( 3 ) ON 13th May 2005, the Apex Court expressed its concern in the following terms:"when litigants come before courts raising disputes as to who shall function as Head of a religious or financial institutions, and they travel through the corridors of various courts and come before this court, one wonders when do these persons get time to think of purity sublime essences of religion and their duties as religious leaders. It has a sad reflection on the credibility of the religious institutions. Materialistic pursuits increasingly replace divine pursuits. The Present case at hand is no exception. "

( 4 ) NEARLY a year thereafter, unfortunately, the same position obtains and the direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably by the end of november, 2005 made by the Apex Court remains as a direction without there being effective compliance despite the assurance of the learned Counsel to the Supreme Court that the parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit. The reason is not far to seek as the facts of the present controversy would show.

( 5 ) THE petitioners herein are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002 while the respondents herein are the original plaintiffs. Hereinafter, the parties shall be referred to as per their respective description in the suit, for the sake of convenience.

( 6 ) IT is an accepted fact that on 27. 9. 2002, the defendants filed their written statement in the suit. On 1. 10. 2002, the trial Court made an order below application Exh. 5, which came to be challenged by way of Appeal From order bearing No. 421 of 2002. This Court decided the same vide judgment and order dated 6. 4. 2004 [ (2004) 3 GLR 2081]. The same was carried by way of Appeal before the Apex court. The Apex Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order made by this Court directing the High Court to hear the Appeal from Order once again in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Appeal From Order No. 421 of 2002 along with connected matter being Appeal from Order No. 69 of 2003 came to be heard and disposed of by this Court on 5. 10. 2005. Once again, the same came to be challenged before the Apex Court and vide order dated 6. 1. 2006, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed with a request to the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as is conveniently possible preferably with day-to-day hearing.

( 7 ) IN the meantime, in absence of any stay as to the proceedings, the trial Court framed the issues on 28th Sept. 2005 (Exh. 58 ). On 21st oct. 2005, two applications, viz. Exhs. 59 and 64, moved by the parties seeking amendment of the Issues framed and framing of additional issues, came to be disposed of by the trial court by rejecting both the applications. Accordingly, the trial Court posted the matter for evidence on 24. 10. 2005.

( 8 ) ON 24. 11. 2005, the defendants moved an application Exh. 95 seeking leave to amend the written statement with a prayer to incorporate in the written statement already filed various defences urged before this Court and the Apex court in proceedings challenging the order of interim injunction. The said application exh. 95 came to be rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 24th Jan. 2006, which has been challenged by way of this petition.

( 9 ) MR. S. B. VAKIL, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants assailed the impugned order made by the trial Court. It was submitted, firstly, that the trial Court had erred in reading the provisions of Order vi Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( cpc ) with special reference to proviso under the said Rule. The submission was that, if the approach of the trial Court could be held to be correct, it woul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document