Smt. Pushpa Berry vs Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad and Another

K.K. Lahoti, J.

Plaintiff has filed this revision assailing the order dt.20th June, 2003 passed by 9th Civil Judge Class I, in civil suit No. 183-A/2001 by which the court found that the compromise filed by Smt. Shashikala More on behalf of Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad dated 13.9.1982 was without any authority and the said compromise is not legal.

This case is having a chequered history. To appreciate the contention of the parties, it is necessary to state facts of the case:

Respondents Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad (hereinafter referred as the ''Society'') is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is also registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The object of the Society as per Memorandum of Association is to promote an economic, social, educational, cultural activities or any profitable field of activity and activities like giving scholarship to poor deserving students, medical aid and to help the poor persons without any distinction of caste, colour or creed. To achieve the aforesaid object, the Society undertook the activity in connection with cottage industry as specified by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956. The Society started papad making and for this purpose, the society engaged women who were willing to abide by the objects of the Society with a signed declaration for appointment in the Society. As per Article 1 (A) of the Association membership has been given a wider meaning by general meeting held on 8.8.1976. By this, any woman who was working in the institution became its member from the date on which she started working. The Petitioner Society could also open branches in any town or village so that the branches may be opened by 51 members of that village or town. With the aforesaid object, a branch of the Society was opened at Jabalpur in February 1974.

On 9th Sept. 1975, the President of the Society certified that the Society had eight outstation centers and one of them was at Jabalpur. Petitioner Smt. Pushpa Berry of Jabalpur was appointed as a Sanchalika and was authorised by the President to sign and deal etc., on behalf of the Jabalpur Branch. Some differences arose between the Society and the Branch at Jabalpur, and the Managing Committee of the Society took a decision on 22.2.1978 to close down the Jabalpur Branch. The decision of the Society was communicated to the Petitioner on 26.2.1978 and Petitioner was asked to handover the charge at Bombay. The Jabalpur Branch was also asked not to use the Trade Mark "Lijjat" in respect of the Papad they made, nor to use the trade name "Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad". Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, 191 members of the Jabalpur Branch including the Petitioner filed the suit in the Court of 7th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur for a declaration that the decision taken by the Managing Committee on 22.2.1978 was illegal, inoperative and also for injunction restraining the Society for implementing the decision. Along with the plaint, Petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ''C.P.C.'') for adinterim injunction. The aforesaid application was contested by the parties. The trial Court after hearing the parties, recorded a finding in favour of the Plaintiffs and granted temporary injunction in their favour.

Thereafter the suit proceeded further. Date of hearing was fixed as 23rd-24th September 1982. On 13.9.1982, an application for compromise was filed by the parties. The aforesaid application was subscribed by Smt. Shashikala More on behalf of the Society as President. The trial Court recorded the compromise and passed a decree in favour of the Plaintiff on 16.9.1982. This compromise decree was challenged by the Society by filing First appeal, but remained unsuccessful. Thereafter, Second appeal was filed before the High Court which was registered as S.A. No. 53/93. This appeal was decided finally on 27.10.1999 wherein following order was passed:

It is argued on behalf of the Respondents that this second appeal is not maintainable if the first appeal against the compromise is held to be under Order 43 Rule 1-A(2) CPC In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred above the first appeal is maintainable u/s 96 CPC Therefore, a second appeal against the judgment rejecting the first appeal would lie u/s 100 CPC The order of the first appellate Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for holding an enquiry whether Smt. More had the authority to enter into the compromise and the said compromise is lawful. In case the trial Court holds that the compromise is not lawful because Smt. More had no authority to compromise the case, it would set aside the compromise decree and decide the suit on merits. If it is found that the compromise was lawful the compromise decree as passed earlier will hold good.

In view of the aforesaid the matter was remitted back for holding an enquiry by the trial Court. In the trial Court interrogatories were given by the Plaintiff. Respondent No. 1 was directed to reply the interrogatories 3 and 4. Society challenged the aforesaid order in the High Court. This was subject-matter of C.R. No. 148/2001 and on 6.11.2001, the High Court passed following order:

This is a revision by Defendant Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad against the order dated 8.12.2000 by which it has been directed to submit reply to the interrogatories No. 3 and 4 in the application dated 17.10.2000 of the Plaintiff. It is pointed out that now the Defendant by the affidavit dated 13.12.2000 have furnished reply to the interrogatories. It is further clarified during the course of hearing of this revision that on 6.7.1982 Smt. Shashikala S. More was the President of the Society.

As the interrogatories No. 3 and 4 have been answered subsequently by an affidavit, no further direction is required to be given to the trial Court.

Officers of the Banks will not be called in evidence nor there is any need to call bank account numbers. Enquiry will be completed within three months of the date of this order. The Plaintiffs will not prolong the enquiry.

The Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed in Civil Revision No. 148/2001 filed a SLP before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 11th November, 2002 in the S.L.P, held:

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court so far as the issue as to interrogatories is concerned. However, it appears that while disposing of the revision, the High Court was persuaded to make an observation to the effect: "Officers of the Banks will not be called evidence nor there is any need to call bank account numbers". In our opinion, this observation tantamounting to a direction, is premature. This aspect of the matter should have been left to be examined by the trial Court. If any party makes a prayer to the trial court for summoning officers of the banks or calling for bank account numbers, it would be open to the trial court to form its own opinion whether that prayer should be allowed and the trial court may in its discretion decline the prayer if it finds that the prayer is vexatious, frivolous or uncalled for. It is ordered accordingly.

The appeal is disposed of in the abovesaid terms.

There after Petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for examination of the Bank Officers on commission. This application was rejected by the trial Court, evidence recorded and the impugned order has been passed.

The learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that:

(1) The trial Court has not afforded due opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce evidence in this case. The moot question in the case is whether Smt. Shashikala More was the President of the Society on 13.9.1982 when she entered into compromise on behalf of the Society as a President. This fact could be proved by Examination of the Bank Managers and the record of the Bank showing that even after 6.7.1982 she continued as the President of the Society and the Bank accounts were operated by her. In the circumstances, the contention of the Society that Smt. Shashikala More was not President on 13.9.1982 because she was removed on 6.7.1982 from the Presidentship itself belies and the compromise entered into by Smt. Shashikala More was valid.

(2) The application filed by the Petitioner ought to have been allowed by the Court below. Rejection of the application has caused grave injustice to the Petitioner.

(3) The Apex Court vide order dated 11th November, 2002 though set aside the part of the order dated 6.11.2001 passed in Civil Revision No. 148/2001, but inspite of this, the Court below has acted as per the order dated 6.11.2001. The application filed by the Petitioner for examination on commission ought to have been allowed.

(4) The burden to prove in this case was on Respondent-Society that Smt. Shashikala More was not President on 13.9.1982, but the trial Court has wrongly placed burden on the Petitioner to prove that Smt. Shashikala More was having authority to enter into compromise and the said compromise was lawful.

Contending aforesaid, the learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that this revision deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the trial Court may be quashed or in the alternative, this case be remanded to the trial Court for recording the evidence of the Bank Manager on commission.

The learned Counsel appearing for Society has supported the order. He has also argued at length on the following points:

(1) The compromise itself was not lawful in view of the Articles of Association, which does not authorise President of the Society to enter into compromise. Apart from this, the said compromise was to the detriment of the interest of the Society and the President cannot act beyond his powers.

(2) The burden in this case was on the Plaintiff-Petitioner to prove that the compromise was lawful and the Plaintiff ought to have proved the fact that on 13.9.1982, Smt. Shashikala More was authorised to enter into compromise. In Second appeal, the High Court remanded the case to decide the question whether Smt. Shashikala More was having authority to enter into compromise and the said compromise was lawful. In the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly placed the burden on the Plaintiff who was relying on the compromise. Now, both the parties have adduced evidence. In the circumstances, burden of proof has lost its efficacy.

(3) The Plaintiff has not examined Smt. Shashikala More as witness because the Plaintiffs were relying on the aforesaid compromise and the authority of Smt. Shashikala More.

(4) Smt. Shashikala More was removed from the Presidentship of the Society on 6.7.1982, this is apparent from the perusal of the Resolution of the Society which was given due publicity in the newspaper on 11.9.1982, 13.9.1982 and 14.9.1982. In the circumstances, Smt. Shashikala More was having no authority on 13.9.1982 to enter into compromise. The date of hearing in the case was fixed as 23rd Sept. 1982. The case was preponed by filing the aforesaid compromise and the counsel was changed. The new counsel who appeared on behalf of the Society on 13.9.1982 was engaged by Smt. Shashikala More. Previously engaged counsel was even not asked to give no objection certificate when Smt. Shashikala More engaged some other counsel. As per Bar Council Rules, no objection certificate of previous counsel was necessary. Previously, Shri V.R. Rao, counsel appeared in the case, but Smt. Shashikala More engaged Shri S. Gupta, Advocate for subscribing on the compromise. The aforesaid conduct shows all the suspicions.

(5) The Court has not discharged its duties before passing the decree on the compromise. Lawfulness ought to have been seen by the trial Court, while passing order under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC The Court cannot pass an order in a mechanical manner and before encroaching over the rights of the Society, the Court below ought to have seen the authority of the person entering into compromise on behalf of the Society because the compromise was to the detriment of the interest of the Society.

(6) The resolution dated 22.2.1978 passed by the Society was challenged in the suit. The President was not empowered under the Articles of Association to enter into compromise, unless she is being authorised to enter into compromise as per bye-laws of the Society. The suit was hotly contested by the Society. There was no question of entering into compromise in such a manner. The aforesaid order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the statutory provisions of trade mark and also contrary to the terms of the compromise.

(7) The Plaintiff has never asked to the trial Court to examine the witness as per directions of the Apex Court in the SLP The Apex Court has specifically directed that "if any party makes a prayer to the trial Court for summoning officers of the Banks or calling for the bank accounts numbers, it would be open to the trial Court to form its own opinion whether that prayer should be allowed and the trial Court may in its discretion decline the prayer if it finds that the prayer is vexatious, frivolous or uncalled for." When the Apex Court has specifically directed to the parties to make such a prayer for summoning the witness in the trial Court, then the Petitioner ought to have filed such an application, but without making such a prayer, the prayer was made for examination of the aforesaid witness on commission. The aforesaid prayer was contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court. Apart from this, the examination of the Bank Manager will not improve the case in any manner. Smt. Shashikala More was removed from the office vide Resolution dated 6.7.1982, which was duly communicated to all the concerned and wide publicity was made in the newspapers on 11.9.1982, 13.9.1982 and 14.9.1982. Smt. Shashikala More was having no authority to enter into compromise on behalf of the Society. Even if it is assumed that some cheques were issued by Smt. Shashikala More, even after 6.7.1982 (though it is not so), but this will not improve the case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner ought to have proved the case that the compromise was lawful. She ought to have examined Smt. Shashikala More to prove the aforesaid factum. Mere issuance of cheque by Smt. Shashikala More will not give any authority to her to enter into compromise. Contending aforesaid, the learned Counsel appearing for the Society submits that this revision is without merit and may be dismissed with costs.

Considering the aforesaid contentions of both the counsel, this revision involves following questions:

(1) Whether the compromise entered between the parties was lawful?

(2) Whether Smt. Shashikala More was having any authority to enter into comprmise?

(3) Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for examination of Bank Managers on Commission?

(4) Whether this revision filed on behalf of Smt. Pushpa Berry alone on behalf of all the Plaintiffs is competent?

To appreciate the last contention of the parties that the revision filed by Smt. Pushpa Berry on behalf of all the Plaintiffs is incompetent, is concerned, it is not in dispute that before the trial Court, a suit was filed on behalf of 191 Plaintiffs. The compromise decree was passed in favour of all the Plaintiffs and in this regard relief No. 1 was granted by the trial Court. Apart from this, before the trial Court, the application was contested by all the Plaintiffs. In the circumstances, until and unless all the Plaintiffs join in this revision or other Plaintiffs are made Respondents in this revision, this revision is not competent. The compromise decree passed in favour of all the Plaintiffs has been set aside by the trial Court vide the impugned order. If this revision is allowed and the order in favour of Petitioner is passed, then there will be two conflicting orders one in favour of the Petitioner and another against the Plaintiffs 2 to 191. Apart from this, the Petitioner has not filed any application before this Court or before the trial Court for deleting other co-Plaintiffs from the array of parties. Because during the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioner tried to convince this Court that most of the Plaintiffs are not alive or have left the membership, but only this statement will not be sufficient until and unless Plaintiff-Petitioner files an appropriate application in this regard and prays for an order in this regard. In absence of specific order, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted.

Now the other contention of the parties may be considered whether Smt. Shashikala More was competent to enter into compromise on behalf of the society as President. It is not in dispute that a compromise application was filed on 13.9.1982, though the suit was fixed for recording evidence on 23rd-24th Sept. 1982. As per allegation of the Respondent, Smt. Shashikala More was removed from the office of President on 6.7.1982 and on the date when she entered into compromise on 13.9.1982 she was not President of the Society. From the perusal of the resolution of the society which is on record as Annexure-D1/4 clearly shows that in the emergency meeting of the Managing Committee on 6.7.1982, at Bandra Branch of the Society, a no confidence motion was considered against Smt. Shashikala More. The aforesaid no confidence motion was unanimously passed against Smt. Shashikala More and she was removed from the office. In these circumstances, Smt. Shashikala More was ceased to be the President of the society on 6.7.1982 after passing the resolution. From the publication of the public notice which are on record at pages 142,143 and 144 of the file show that the aforesaid public notice published in Indian Express (Bombay Edition), Loksatta (Bombay) and Bombay Samachar (Bombay) on 11.9.1982, 13.9.1982 and 10.9.1982 respectively. The aforesaid resolution was duly given publicity to in all the newpapers prior to 13.9.1982. In this regard, Respondent has examined Smt. Jyoti Jeewan Naik to prove the aforesaid documents. She is the member of the Society since last 30 years and has categorically stated that in the meeting dated 6th July 1982, Smt. Shashikala More was removed from the Presidentship. She also brought original proceedings of the meeting held on 6th July, 1982. During the course of the hearing, the aforesaid orginal proceedings were also produced before this Court.

In view of aforesaid, it is apparent that on 6th July, 1982 Smt. Shashikala More was ceased to be the President of the Society. Apart from this, the Articles of Association has been produced on record which are as Ex.D/1 and is available at page 110 in the file. The relevant clause and Articles of the Association for this purpose are as under:

Cancellation of Membership:

The membership shall be cancelled in the following

circumstances:

(a) By death.

(b) Who has resigned and the Managing Committee has accepted

the same.

(c) The Managing Committee shall dismiss such a member immediately whose behaving is against the objectives of the Mandal, and constitution and the bye-laws, and whose activities are harmful to the Mandal, and by the ordinary majority and decision of the Mandal, the membership shall be cancelled.

(d) Who is not of sound mind.

(e) One who is a member of competitive Mandal or acts against the objectives of the Mandal or manufacture Papad or Papad of the type of our Mandal for individual person or others shall be immediately dismissed by the Managing Committee on passing the resolution by majority of the Managing Committee.

(f) Any member who stops working for the Institution will automatically forfeit her membership.

3-A Branches of the Institution and its Management.

(a) The power for opening branches, in Bombay or outside Bombay or the power to allow use of its name of good-will to other institution shall remain with the Managing Committee. A branch can be opened after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors such as possibility of sales and production, financial resources and men power to assume responsibility.

(b) Branches may form its Branch committee from its own members. The total number of Members of such Branch committee shall not exceed nine. Such committee shall from time to time take decisions regarding day-to-day administration and other incidental matters, such as review of accounts of the branch, sales, financial resources, commission on sales, purchases of assets, employment or removal of staff, etc.

(c) For the debts created by the branches, sales and purchase of assets and mortgage, etc., the concerned branch alone will be responsible. For such debts or liabilities; no other branches or the Head office will be responsible.

(d) For the excess of income over expenditure or vice-versa, the concerned branch would be responsible. For incidental matter, such as additional labour charges to be paid to members, incentives to be given, purchase of assets and also establishment of separate funds for all these, the branch concerned will take its own decision. The Head Office or any other branch will not be responsible for the excess or deficit of the branch concerned. For such excess or deficit, the branch concerned alone would be responsible.

(e) Notwithstanding anything contained herein, if the Managing Committee or the Head Office finds that the basic principles of the Institution are violated, or the branch/branches is/are not administered properly, or there is deterioration in the quality of the products, then the Managing Committee or the Head office itself or by person/persons appointed by them may get the same examined and if necessary, may take upon itself the administration of such branch/branches or may appoint an administrator. The Managing Committee or the Head office, however, will have the power to close down such branch/ branches at any time.

By giving administrative power to the branch committee, the aim is to promote and encourage the branch, to develop and stand on its own feet and also to control its activities, wherever necessary.

(f) The Institution is bound to expand with the increase in the number of branches. In order that the voice of the branches may also be reflected in the administration of Institution, it is desirable to have a co-ordination committee, which will consist of one member from branch committee and three Members from the Managing committee of the Institution. Such a co-ordination committee may meet for three times in a year.

(g) Sanchalika/Sanchlakas of the branches may also be invited to attend the meeting of the co-ordination committee. This committee will forward its suggestions and report to the Managing committee which will give due consideration. The Coordination committee may consider matters such as market condition of raw materials as well as finished products, branch-accounting system, financial position of the branches, control over expenses, etc. The committee may also arrange programme to raise and promote cultural standard of members. It will pay particular attention to uniformity of working method in all the branches.

9-A Rights and duties of the Managing Committee:

(a) The Managing committee shall be responsible for the day-to-day working of the Mandal and shall have the right to appoint and remove the workers.

(b) The Managing committee shall be responsible for the systematic and smooth functioning of the Mandal and shall present the report of the activities and progress made during the year and plan for the new year budget and also shall present the account in the annual general meeting.

(c) The Managing committee may authorise the president and the Honorary Secretary by passing a Special Resolution to execute all kinds of agreements, documents, writings etc., which are necessary for activities of the Mandal.

(d) The Managing committee shall draft out the new rules to attain the objectives of the Mandal which are not against the objectives mentioned in the constitution of the Mandal and those resolutions which are passed in the Annual General Meeting.

(e) The Managing committee shall fix up the date of the Annual General Meeting.

(f) Each member of the Managing committee shall be given an honorarium as decided by the General Body for attending every meeting of the Managing committee.

(g) The Managing committee, if need be, can elect maximum three members for assistance.

Notes:

(a) Any act or deed performed by any member and/or well-wisher/advisor or a member of the Managing committee or sub-committee in his/her personal capacity will not be considered legal and binding to the Mandal. Such act or deed performed in the past and has resulted in any loss to the Mandal or any misuse of the fund of the Mandal will have to be reimbursed by the Member in question.

(b) Whoever is authorised by the Mandal accounting to the rules and regulations will be considered legal and binding to the Mandal.

(c) Suits can be filed for and against the Mandal in the name of the President. Each contract will be execused in the name of the Mandal, under signature of the president or two members of the Managing committee.

(d) The Mandal shall bear the travelling expenses of the executive or their nominated member if the same is in the interest of the Mandal or its progress.

Winding of the Mandal:

If occasion arises to wind up the Mandal, the same shall be done by the Resolution of the Majority of 3/5th members present in the General Meeting, the assets which remain after paying of all the liabilities of the Mandal, will be handed over by the majority of 3/5th members of the Mandal to other Mandal with allied objects. In no circumstances, the assets will be divided among the members of the Mandal.

From the perusal of the aforesaid Articles, Article 9-A(c) of the above, specifically provides that the Managing Committee may authorise the President and the Honorary Secretary by passing a Special Resolution to execute all kinds of agreements documents writings, etc., which are necessary for activities of the Mandal. Articles 17(c) specifically provides that suit can be filed for and against the Mandal in the name of the President. Each contract will be executed in the name of the Mandal, under signature of the President or two members of the Managing Committee while Articles 19 of the aforesaid Articles specifically provides in no circumstances, the assets will be divided among the members of the Mandal. The compromise between the parties provides that the property will remain as independent property of Branch in all respects. The compromise between the parties as filed on 13.9.1982 reads as under:

(i) That the Defendants admit that their decision taken by the managing committee on 22.2.1978 to close down the Jabalpur branch of the institution, was taken under misconception of the real facts and was thereforce wrong and illegal.

(ii) That the Defendants state that on subsequent enquiry, the allegations alleged against the Jabalpur branch and its Sanchalika, Smt. Pushpa Berry, Plaintiff No. 1, were found to be utterly baseless and false.

(iii) That the Defendants agree that the Jabalpur branch of which Plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Berry is its Sanchalika and the other Plaintiffs are its members will continue to function as an independent branch in all respects such as accounts, audit, sales, purchases, working management and finances, as hither to before and the Defendants will not cause any interference directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever.

(iv) That the entire assets and liabilities of Jabalpur branch belong to Jabalpur branch itself exclusively and for ever and the Defendants or any other office or branch of the Defendants will have no right or interest in it. Likewise the Jabalpur branch shall not be liable for any debt, liability, compensation or claims of the head office or any of its branch or office and shall also not be entitled to claim any right on property or profits of the head office or branches.

(v) That if at any time the Defendants for any reason decide to and close down the institution either temporarily or for ever, the Jabalpur branch will have a right and will continue to function with the name of the institution as ''Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad'' and the trade mark as ''Lijjat'' and will have a right to get the trade mark ''Lijjat'' registered as its own trade mark.

The above specifically stipulates that the Branch was given independent status and was also given the right to use the trade mark ''Lijjat'' with the name of the Society ''Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad''. The aforesaid compromise apparently violates Articles of Association. As per Articles of Association such branches cannot be given such power. In this regard, Article 3-A(e) and (g) of Articles of Association may be looked into. When the aforesaid article specifically provides right to the Managing Committee or the Head office will have the power to close down such branch/branches at any time and the Sanchalika of the Branches has been given power to attend the meeting of the Co-ordination Committee. The President of the Society cannot enter into such an agreement, which is contrary to Articles of Association of the Society. In these circumstances, by the compromise, the powers which cannot be delegated to the Branch as per Articles of Association has been delegated. Apart from this, the President while entering into such an agreement ought to have got authority under Article 9-A(c) to execute such an agreement, but without such specific authorisation, the President cannot execute such an agreement. So far as Article 17(c) is concerned, the President is authorised to file suit or to execute agreement, but it is subject to Article 9-A(c). In these circumstances, from the perusal of Articles of Association, the compromise entered between parties was contrary to the Articles of Association of the Company. If Smt. Shashikala More entered into such a compromise without authority, she had exceeded her authority and the compromise was not lawful. In the aforesaid background, if the prayer of Petitioner is considered for examining the Bank Manager on commission, the entire purpose of examination of the aforesaid on commission as stated is to prove the factum that some cheques were issued after 6.7.1982 and were sent to the Bank. But this act by itself will not authorise Smt. Shashikala More to enter into compromise on behalf of the Society because she was removed from the office on 6.7.1982 and the Articles of Association did not authorise Smt. Shashikala More to enter into such a compromise. In the circumstances, if the trial Court has rejected the application of the Petitioner for examination on commission of the aforesaid Branch Manager in which rejection, I do not find any material irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court. Apart from this, the examination of the Bank Manager on this point will not improve the case of the Petitioner on merits also.

In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion the compromise entered into between the parties was not lawful and Smt. Shashikala More was not authorised on 13.9.1982 to enter into compromise on behalf of the Society. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court, warranting interferences in this revision.

Consequently, this revision has no merit and it is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court will expedite and decide the suit expeditiously, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order, because the suit is pending since 1982.