MOTIRAM ROSHANLAL COAL CO P LTD Vs. DISTRICT COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in revision by the plaintiff arise out of one and the same suit,--Title Suit 3 of 1959-- which is pending before the 1st Court of Munsif at Dhanbad.

(2.) In Civil Revision 33.7 of 1961, the sole question for determination is as to whether Rameshwar Lal Agarwala, opposite party 6, had rightly been added as a party to the suit against the wishes of the plaintiff. In Civil Revision No, 839 of 196.1, the single question for determination is whether the Court below had acted illegally in issuing a commission after further proceedings in the suit had been stayed by this Court.

(3.) Civil Revision 337 of 1961 was admitted on 3-5-1961, and pending the final hearing of the application further proceedings in Title Suit 3 of 1959 in the Court below were stayed. The Court below, on receipt of the order of stay from this Court, recorded an order on 19-5-1961. to the effect that the further proceedings of the suit were stayed till the disposal of Civil Revision 337 of 1961. On 19-7-1961, defendants 2 to 5 filed a petition to direct the plaintiff to repair the road in question, and, on its failure to do so, the District Board should be directed to get it repaired, as the road had become useless owing to heavy rains. When this matter was taken up on 2-8-1961 it was pointed out on behalf of the plaintiff that in view of the stay granted by this Court staying further proceedings, the petition of the defendants should be rejected. In spite of this, the Court ordered that necessary orders will be passed on 12-8-1961, hut, meanwhile, the defendants should take out a commission for the purpose wanted by them. In pursuance of the said direction, defendants 2 to 5 filed a petition for appointment of a commissioner on 5-8-1961 and also deposited the necessary cost, whereupon the Court below appointed a pleader commissioner for holding local inspection and to report the construction of the road in question by 12-8-1961 positively, and, accordingly, the necessary writ was issued. The plaintiff, thereafter, moved this Court against the aforesaid order of 5-8-1961 appointing a pleader commissioner and obtained a rule in Civil Revision 839 of 1961,