The court clarified that the trial court had the jurisdiction to grant leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, even though specific issues were remanded by the Supreme Court, as it was in the interest of justice and would bring the protracted litigation to an end.

( 1 ) IN this revision under Section 115. C. P. C. the plaintiffs of a suit filed as far back as in the year 1942, have challenged an order passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge. Agra on May 20, 1993 rejecting their applications for an order under Rule 8 of Order 1. C. P. C. in respect of the defendants. The revision wag admitted to a fuller hearing by this Court on July 14, 1983 and was heard finally with the consent of the parties, in October, 1983. The background :

( 2 ) THE litigation has had a chequered history. The suit (No. 1 of 1942) out of which this revision arises, is pending as First Appeals Nos. 239 and 301 of 1961 against the decree of the trial Court dated July 5, 1961 by which two out of three, reliefs prayed for were granted. Without going into the antecedent history in detail, only this need be observed that in appeals taken to if by special leave against an order made by this Court on miscellaneous applications in these First Appeals, the Supreme Court gave a judgment on October 21, 1965, with the consent of the parties. The plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint, subject to the modifications indicated in the judgment and to add some additional defendants to the suit. The amended plaint and the written statements filed by the parties were taken on record and 49 issues of which a list was appended as Schedule a to the judgment, arising from these pleadings, were framed for findings by the trial Court which was directed to set down the hearing of the issues at an early date and after the evidence had been recorded, to make its findings and submit the same to the High Court The high Court was directed to hear the two First Appeals on receipt of the findings after the parties had filed their objections, if any. The Supreme Court also expressed hope that the par-ties would co-operate with the trial Court in the expeditious trial of the fresh issues and would assist in early termination of the litigation. That hope, however, has so far remained unfulfilled for with their tenacity and ingenuity the Parties have so far not permitted the trial Court to proceed in the manner directed by the Supreme Court, The present is a typical case where Judge, with all their sincerity have failed to see the end of the litigation concerning an Institution, so piously brought into being for spiritual solace by undoubted Masters.

( 3 ) THE warring factions involved in the suit subscribe to the same faith known as Radhaswami faith. The founder of the Faith was Somaji Maharaj who departed from this world in 1878-Hazur Maharaj succeeded him and thereafter in 1898 Maharaj Saheb succeeded Hazur maharaj. He left this world in 1907. These three Sant Satgurus are recognised and acknowledged by the followers of the Faith and their holy ashes which lie enshrined in Samadhs are revered by all the followers of the Faith. Considerable properties are owned by the Faith. The dispute is about the right to enjoy and manage these properties as well as the right to visit the Samadhs and offer prayers and worship according to the tenets of the Faith.

( 4 ) IN 1902 a body of persons known as Central Administrative Council (for brief. CAC) was elected at the suggestion of Maharaj Saheb to administer and manage the Satsang properties and the offerings for the object of Satsang. A smaller body out of its own members, was elected by the Council in the year 1904 and was called the Radhaswami Trust. The administration of the property was left in the hands of these trustees. The members of the Trust are defendants in the suit. A society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, called the Radha Swami Satsang sabha (for brief, the Sabha) together with 13 others instituted the suit as plaintiffs. The occasion for it arose when, in an earlier suit No. 50 of 1924, the defendants of the suit as plaintiffs partly succeeded before the Privy Council. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that it was not open to a group of the follow