Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/14 vs Assam Drug Dealer Association (Adda) ... on 24 March, 2025

Page No.# 1/14

GAHC010196872019

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : FAO/42/2019

CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926, HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT BYE LANE NO. 1, BANI NAGAR, REHABARI, GUWAHATI-
781008, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI DILIP
CHANDRA GOSWAMI.

2: DR. NATWARLAL AGARWALA
PRESIDENT OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BYE LANE NO. 1
BANI NAGAR
REHABARI
GUWAHATI- 781008
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.

3: SRI DILIP CHANDRA GOSWAMI
SECRETARY OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BYE LANE NO. 1
BANI NAGAR
REHABARI
GUWAHATI- 781008
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM

VERSUS

ASSAM DRUG DEALER ASSOCIATION (ADDA) AND 4 ORS.
A PURPORTED REGISTERED SOCIETY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR,
CITY TOWER, S.C. GOSWAMI ROAD, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001,
DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI
BIRKRAMANANDA CHOUDHURY.

2:ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS (AIOCD)
Page No.# 2/14

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.C.D.A 12
BONEFIELD LANE
1ST FLOOR
KOLKATA- 700001
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI RAJIV SINGHAL.

3:THE PRESIDENT
ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS

201
SAFALYA BUILDING
2ND FLOOR
OPPOSITE JAIGOPAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BABURAO PARULEKAR MARG
DADAR (W)
MUMBAI- 400028
MAHARASHTRA.

4:THE GENERAL SECRETARY
ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS

M/S. SHREE RADHEY TRADE LOGISTICS
PARABHU KRIPA 120
S.R. COMPOUND LASUDIA
INDORE- 452010
MADHYA PRADESH.

5:SRI JAGANNATH S. SHINDHE
PRESIDENT
ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS
201
SAFALYA BUILDING
2ND FLOOR
OPOSITE JAIGOPAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BABURAO PARULEKAR MARG
DADAR(W)
MUMBAI- 400028
MAHARASHTRA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORPUJARI, MR. B GOGOI,MR. D SAIKIA,MS. N
BORDOLOI,MR. A PHUKAN

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A CHAMUAH, MS. S PARVEEN,FOR CAVEATOR,MR. N K
NEOG,MR. M DAS,MR S BHARALI,MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Page No.# 3/14

Linked Case : FAO/41/2019

ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMIST AND DRUGGISTS (AIOCD)

A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WEST BENGAL
SOCIETIES ACT
1961
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.C.D.A.
12 BONFIELD LANE
1ST FLOOR
KOLKATA- 700001 AND AN OFFICE AT 201
SAFALYA BUILDING
2ND FLOOR
OPPOSITE JAIGOPAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BABURAO PARULEKAR MARG
DADAR (WEST)
MUMBAI- 400028.

VERSUS

ASSAM DRUG DEALER ASSOCIATION AND ANR
AN UNREGISTERED SOCIETY HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PLACE OF
BUSSINESS AT 4TH FLOOR
CITY TOWER
S.C. GOSWAMI ROAD
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM AND REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
SHRI BIKRAMANNANDA CHOUDHURY.

2:CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
A REGISTERED TRADE UNION REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE TRADE UNIONS ACT
1926
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BYE LANE NO. 1
BANI NAGAR
REHABARI
GUWAHAT- 781008
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D BARUAH
Advocate for : MR. A CHAMUAH appearing for ASSAM DRUG DEALER
ASSOCIATION AND ANR
Page No.# 4/14

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/537/2020

ASSAM DRUG DEALER ASSOCIATION(ADDA)
A REGISTERED SOCIETY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR
CITY TOWER
S.C. GOSWAMI ROAD
PANBAZAR
GHY-01
DIST.KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECY. SRI BIKRAMANANDA CHOUDHURY

VERSUS

CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADE UNIONS ACT
1926
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BYE LANE NO.1
BANI NAGAR
REHABARI
GHY-08
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS SECY. SRI DILIP CHANDRA GOSWAMI

2:NATWARLAL AGARWALA
PRESIDENT OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BYE LANE NO.1 BANI NAGAR REHABARI GHY-08
DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

3:DILIP CHANDRA GOSWAMI
SECRETARY OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BYE LANE NO.1 BANI NAGAR REHABARI GHY-08
DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

4:ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS(AIOCD)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.C.D.A. 12
BONEFIELD LANE 1ST FLOOR KOLKATA-01 REP. BY ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY SRI RAJIV SINGHAL

5:THE PRESIDENT ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMISTS AND
DRUGGISTS
201 SAFALYA BUILDING 2ND FLOOR OPPOSITE JAIGOPAL INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE BABURAO PARULEKAR MARG DADAR(W) MUMBAI-400028
Page No.# 5/14

MAHARASHTRA

6:THE GENERAL SECRETARY ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMIST
AND DRUGGISTS
M/S. SHREE RADHEY TRADE LOGISTICS PARABHU KRIPA 120 S.R.
COMPOUND LASUDIA INDORE-452010 MADHYA PRADESH

7:JAGANNATH S. SHINDHE
PRESIDENT ALL INDIA ORGANIZATION OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS 201
SAFALYA BUILDING 2ND FLOOR OPOSITE JAIGOPAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BABURAO PARULEKAR MARG DADAR(W) MUMBAI-28 MAHARASHTRA
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : MR. R BORPUJARI appearing for CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS
ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER

Date : 24.03.2025

Heard Ms. S. Parveen, learned counsel for the applicant in I.A.(Civil) No. 537/2020 and respondent in FAO No.42/2019 and FAO No. 41/2019. And also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the opposite parties in I.A.(Civil) No. 537/2020 and appellants in FAO No. 42/2019 and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for opposite parties in I.A.(Civil) No. 537/2020, and the appellants in FAO No. 41/2019.

2. As agreed upon by learned Advocates of both sides, it is proposed to dispose of the present I.A.(Civil) No. 537/2020 arising out of FAO No.42/2019, and the FAO No.41/2019 and FAO No. 42/2019, by this common order.

3. It is to be noted here that I.A.(Civil) No. 537/2020, in FAO No.42/2019 is filed for vacation/modification and/or alteration of the interim order dated 19.08.2019 passed in FAO No. 42/2019 and all subsequent orders extending the interim order dated 19.08.2019 and for dismissal of the FAO No. 42/2019.

Page No.# 6/14

4. All Assam Drug Dealers Association ('ADDA', for short), the applicant herein, is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its own Rules and Regulation in the form of Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. Whereas, respondent herein, namely, Chemist and Druggists Association of Assam which is a registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is the contention of the opposite parties/respondents that the registration of the applicant herein is no longer a valid one.

5. On the other hand, it is the contention of the applicant ADDA that they continue to remain the Association of the Pharmacist and Druggist since the time of its registration and was affiliated under the All India Organization of Chemist and Druggists ('AIOCD', for short).

6. Thereafter, by a resolution dated 17.02.2019, the affiliation of ADDA was cancelled and ADDA was expelled from the membership of the AIOCD, which is under challenge in the Court of learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in a suit being Title Suit No. 56/ 2019.

7. Along with the said suit, the applicant ADDA had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for granting injunction, but, vide order dated 11.07.2019 in Misc (J) Case No. 377/2019, the prayer for injunction was refused.

8. Thereafter, vide another letter dated 15.07.2019, Chemist and Druggist Association of Assam ('CDAA', for short) was given affiliation to AIOCD, which is also being challenged in another title suit being Title Suit No. 341/2019, before the Court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

9. In the said Title Suit No. 341/2019, the applicant had also filed an application for granting injunction which was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 640/2019. And in the said application, the learned trial Court had granted injunction on 16.08.2019, by which the affiliation granted in favour of Chemist and Druggist Association of Assam (CDAA) was kept in abeyance. This order of injunction is being challenged in FAO No. 41/2019 by Page No.# 7/14

AIOCD and in FAO No. 42/2019 by CDAA. Along with the said appeal the AIOCD and the CDAA also filed two interlocutory application being I.A. (C)No. 2801/2019 and I.A.(C) No. 2802/2019, for staying the impugned order dated 16.08.2019.

10. Then while admitting the two appeals, this Court, vide order dated 19.08.2019, in FAO No. 41/2019, having found the prima-facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the appellant CDAA for the purpose of taking a call on the matter of continuing with injunction and was pleased to stay the impugned order, dated 16.08.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup (M), in Misc(J) Case No. 640/2019. It is also provided that that the appellant CDDA shall continue with the affiliation under AIOCD and also discharge its function till the disposal of the suit.

11. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the present interlocutory application with the prayer mentioned herein above.

12. The opposite parties, in the I.A., had filed their affidavit-in-opposition where in a stand has been taken that the order of this Court, dated 19.08.2019, in FAO No. 41/2019, had already attained finality which was passed after hearing both the parties. It is also stated that practically the applicant herein has sought for review of the order dated 19.08.2019 and the same is impermissible in view of Article 124 of the Limitation Act. Besides, under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC, there is no scope of filing an application for vacation, modification, alteration of any order passed by appellate court. It is also stated that introduction of new facts and documents in an interlocutory application is not permissible. Further it is stated that Annexure-10 is not part of the record of Title Suit No. 341/2019. It is also stated that CDAA is a registered association under the Trade Unions Act on 25.06.2019. It is also stated that the issue, whether a trade union can or cannot be an association and whether it can be inducted as member of AIOCD or not, the same has to be decided in trial of Title Suit No. 341/2019. It is also stated that in the state of Rajasthan, the members of pharmacists, chemist and druggist of the AIOCD have formed Rajasthan Chemists Association, which is incorporated under the Rajasthan Non-Trading Companies Act, 1960. And similar instances are there in the state of West Bengal, where Page No.# 8/14

the members of pharmacists, chemist and druggist of the AIOCD have formed Calcutta Chemist & Druggist Association which was incorporated under the India Companies Act, 2013. And as such, a trade union cannot be a member of AIOCD is a misconceived argument. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition.

13. Ms. S. Parveen Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the opposite parties herein had fraudulently obtained memorandum of association and in fact, there was no memorandum of association, as revealed by the documents obtained by the applicant herein under the RTI Act. Ms. Parveen also submits that in fact no extra- ordinary meeting of AIOCD had ever taken place and no show case notice was also given and the applicants were only asked to reply. Ms. Parveen also submits that the applicants herein had submitted all the relevant documents and there was an enquiry report also and on the basis of fraudulent papers, the opposite parties herein had obtained the order of stay of this Court and the said papers were not submitted before the learned trial Court and no evidence is adduced before the learned trial Court. Therefore, Ms. Parveen has contended to allow this application by vacation/modification and/or alteration of the interim order dated 19.08.2019 passed in FAO No. 42/2019. Ms. Parveen has referred following decisions in support of her submission:-

      (i)             Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Another vs. M.S.S. Food
                Products, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 63,

      (ii)           Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi And Others, reported in
                (2003) 8 SCC 319,

      (iii)          Hamza Hazi vs. State of Kerela And Another, reported in
                (2006) 7 SCC 416;

      (iv)            Ramakant    Ambalal    Choksi    vs.   Harish    Ambalal     Choksi    &
                Others, Civil Appeal No. 13001 of 2024;

14. Per contra, Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel submits that this I.A. is not at all maintainable. The applicant herein ought to have filed either review before this Page No.# 9/14

Court or Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and in view of Article 124 of the Limitation Act review is barred. Mr. Das also submits that the appeal filed by the appellant, being FAO No. 42/2019 becomes infructous and as the relief sought for in the same had been granted in the order dated 19.08.2019. Further, Mr. Das submits that the document, based on which the present application is filed is not part of the original title suit. Mr. Das also, taking this Court through the order under appeal, submits that the said order is a perverse order in as much as, the learned trial Court had not at all discussed balance of convenience and irreparable loss in the same and though it had discussed only about the prima-facie case. Referring to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Another vs. M.S.S. Food Products, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 63, submits that in view of Order 41 Rule 27, this application ought not to have been entertained under Order 41 Rule 5. Mr. Das also submits that the applicant had not taken leave of this Court for filing the documents relied upon it. Under such circumstances, Mr. Das has contended to dismiss this application being not maintainable.

15. On the other hand, Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No.41/2019, also subscribes the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No.42/2019, and submits that as the relief sought for in the FAO No.41/2019, has already been granted by this Court the FAO No. 41/2019 becomes infructous. Mr. Borpujari also submits that this petition ought to have been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Mr. Borpujari referring to a decision of Honble Supreme Court in State of Kerela vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 183; submits that while granting temporary injunction the court has to consider the three golden principles, i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, and in the case in hand, the learned trial Court had not discussed the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, though it had only discussed about prima-facie case and the same is also absent in the said Title Suit. Mr. Borpujari also submits that there are material contradictions in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the order dated 11.07.2019 in Misc (J) Case No. 377/19, at page No. 44 and in the order dated 16.08.2019 in Misc.(J) Case No. 640/19 in Title Suit No. 341/19. Mr. Borpujari also submits that the order dated Page No.# 10/14

11.07.2019 had already attained finality and it was a fit case for interference and accordingly, the same may be interfered with by this court. Mr. Borpujari also submits that the appellant association is registered under the Trade Unions Act, not under the Societies Registration Act and there is no necessity that it should always be registered under the Societies Registration Act. Mr. Borpujari also submits that there is no merit in the application, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same.

16. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the order of this Court dated 19.08.2019, passed by this Court in FAO No. 42/2019. Also I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by learned Advocates of both sides.

17. And it appears that there is substance in the submissions of Mr. Das and Mr. Borpujari, the learned counsel for the appellants in FAO No.42/2019 and FAO No.41/2019, as the relief(s) being sought for in those appeals had already been granted in the order dated 19.08.2019, and as such, both the appeals seems to be infructuous.

18. It also appears that alteration/modification of the order of this Court dated 19.08.2019, being sought for on the ground that after the order being passed by this Court, the Secretary of the applicant had filed one RTI application seeking some information from the Labour Commissioner, Guwahati and on receipt of said information on 07.09.2019 (Annexure-7) of the interlocutory application, it has been found that the opposite party No.1 had not filed any memorandum of association or article of association at the time of its registration as a trade union, which they had annexed as Annexure 'C' in the FAO No.42/2019 and they had also filed the same along with their written statement in T.S. No. 341/2019, and this fact, according to the applicant, goes to show that the opposite parties herein had mislead this Court for obtaining the said order and that Annexure-'C'is a false document and on the basis of this document the opposite parties had created an impression upon this Court that it was the document which they had filed for obtaining registration under the Trade Unions Act and they deliberately tried to portray themselves in the FAO by stating that they are the Society registered under the Trade Page No.# 11/14

Unions Act.

19. But, a cursory perusal of the order of this Court, dated 19.08.2019, never indicates, even remotely, that this Court was weighed by the Annexure- 'C' in arriving at such a finding. What this Court had taken note of is the absence of prima-facie case in favour of the ADDA, the applicant herein and existence of balance of convenience in favour of the opposite parties CDAA.

20. In this context it is to be noted here that the learned trial Court had failed to discuss the three golden principles of granting temporary injunction in the order of injunction, dated 16.08.2019, in Misc.(J) Case No. 640/2019, in T.S. No. 341/2019. The order dated 16.08.2019 appears to be contradictory also to the order so passed by the learned trial Court in the Misc(J) Case No. 377/2019, in Title Suit No. 56/2019, where injunction sought by applicant No.1-ADDA was refused.

21. Further, it appears that the applicant herein had, in all probability, sought for review of the order dated 19.08.2019. While the order was passed on 19.08.2019, the application was filed on 11.02.2020, almost after six months. On the other hand, Article 124 of the Limitation Act provides that limitation for filing a review application is 30 days from the date of the decree. Thus, having been filed on 11.02.2020, the application is utterly barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents rightly pointed this out and there is substance in the same.

22. Besides, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, the parties to an appeal is not entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the appellate court unless it is shown that the court which passed the decree refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or; if the party to the appeal is able to establish that such evidence was not within his knowledge or; despite due diligence, the evidence could not be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed by the trial Court; or if the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment.

23. In the instant case no such ground is assigned for producing the Page No.# 12/14

Annexure-'C'before the appellate court and no leave was admittedly taken. There is also no scope of filing an application for vacation, modification, alteration of any order passed by appellate court. It is also stated that introduction of new facts and documents in an interlocutory application is not permissible.

24. It is well settled in the case of Dhariwal Industries Ltd. (supra), normally in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, the appeal must be considered based on the material that was produced before the trial court or before the appellate court in terms of the permission granted by that court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. At the interlocutory stage it would not be proper for the Court to enter into an adjudication based on the various documents produced before it and it will be proper to confine only to the materials available before the trial court and those made available before the lower appellate court with the permission of that court while considering the interlocutory appeal.

25. I have considered the submission of Ms. Parveen, learned counsel for the applicant and also gone through the decisions referred by her. There is no quarrel at the bar that fraud vitiates everything. In the case of Delhi Development Authority and Ors. Vs. Bankmens Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2017) 7 SCC 636, in para No.11, it has been held as under:

11. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letters or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letters. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues there from although the motive from which the Page No.# 13/14

representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res -judicata.

26. Same principle is reiterated in the case of Ram Chandra Singh (supra); Hamza Hazi (supra) and in the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi (supra) so referred by Ms. Perveen. But, as held in the case of Dhariwal Industries Ltd. (supra) it would not be proper for the Court to enter into an adjudication based on the documents produced before it and it will be proper to confine only to the materials available before the trial court not at the interlocutory stage.

27. Under the given facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this interlocutory application, being I.A.(Civil) No. 537/2020, arising out of FAO No. 42/2019, and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

28. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel for the opposite parties in this I.A. and appellants in FAO No. 42/2019 and Mr. Borpujari, the learned counsel for the appellants in FAO No. 41/2019, submits that the applicant herein had already submitted the RTI reply dated 07.09.2019 (Annexure-7) of the interlocutory application, before the learned trial Court. Now, the learned trial Court has to decide, based upon the evidence adduced whether the opposite parties herein, is a trade union or society and such, Mr. Das has contended to remand the matter to the learned trial Court. Mr. Borpujari, the learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No. 41/2019 also subscribed the submission of Mr. Das.

29. Thus, taking note of the submission of the learned Advocates of both the parties, and also taking note of the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to remand the FAO No.41/2019 and FAO No. 42/2019 to the learned trial Court, granting liberties to the parties to raise the points before the learned trial Court, in the Page No.# 14/14

Title Suit No. 341/2019. Since the matter is pending for a quite long time, the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same as soon as practicable, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court herein above.

30. The parties have to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant