GOVINDA PILLAI Vs. PADMANABHA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In directing the issue of a fresh commission the court called upon the 13th defendant who is the revision petitioner, to deposit a sum of Rs. 100/-towards part of the commissioner's batta and ordered, that in the event of default by him the plaintiff may recover the same with interest at 6%. The revision petition is directed against this part of the order only and not the issue of a fresh commission. Clearly, the court had no jurisdiction to pass the order for the realisation of the share of the commissioner's batta from the 13th defendant in the above manner. See Ramsaran Dass v. Firm Ram Lal Ram Labhaya (AIR 1926 Lahore 62(1). It was stated before me, that the plaintiff had already deposited the sum of Rs. 100/- ordered to be paid by the 13th defendant. So the commissioner can proceed with his work if he has not already done so. The expenses of the commission will be one of the items of the costs of the suit. In passing the decree, the court will finally adjudge the liability for the costs of the suit, including the expenses of the commission and as to how they should be apportioned. With those observations the order so far as it relates to the payment of batta by the 13th defendant and to the enforcement of that order at the instance of the plaintiff is vacated. If the first defendant has not deposited batta as directed by the lower court the plaintiff may pay the same and the first defendant's liability also will be judged on the same basis. This petition is disposed of as above. A copy of this Order and the records of the case will be transmitted to the lower court immediately. No costs in this revision petition.