P. CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) A short point has been urged in support off this appeal though at considerable length. Them has been some citation of authorities, but the point has ultimately to be decided on principle.

( 2 ) THE facts are as follows. On the 18th of December, 1950, the respondent, Premraj Ganpatraj, brought a suit against the appellant. National Textiles, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,36,946-10-2. The suit has been described as an agent's suit against a principal for reimbursement, but, in reality, it appears to have been a claim for commission on account of commission agency dealings. On the 8th of May, 1956, a decree was passed in the suit and, by that decree, Mr. A. N. Sen, a member of the Bar, was appointed a Special Referees on a settled remuneration of 100 gold mohurs, to be paid by the plaintiff in the first instance, to determine what amount was due by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of the commission agency dealings which had taken place between 1st of January, 1949 and the 18th of December, 1950. Pending the receipt of the Referee's report, further hearing of the suit was adjourned. As regards the time within which the Referee was to make his report and as regards further directions that might be necessary, the decree provided as follows:--". . . . it is further ordered and decreed that the said Special Referee do within 4 months from the date hereof, submit a report after taking the accounts aforesaid and do after one month from the date hereof commence his reference aforesaid and this Court doth reserve the consideration of all further directions and of the costs of the reference herein until the said Special Referee shall have made his report''.

( 3 ) THE appellant was dissatisfied with that decree and on the 3rd of July, 1956, preferred an appeal. At the time that it filed the appeal, it also applied for a stay of further proceedings in the reference, but by an order, dated the 18th of July 1956, stay was refused. The respondent, however, gave an undertaking that in case it was found in the appeal that the reference was unnecessary and thus the reference proved infructuous, it would pay the appellant all its taxed costs which would be found to have been thrown away.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the respondent filed a cross-objection against the decree and the point taken on its behalf was that the learned Judge should have passed a decree in its favour straightway without directing a reference.

( 5 ) THE time fixed by the decree for submitting the Special Referee's report expired on the 8th of September, 1956. Although, by that time, the Referee had held about sixteen sittings, he was still very far away from the end of the reference. It appears that thereafter on an application by the respondent, the learned trial Judge made an order on the 13th of September, 1956, extending the time for making the report till the 18th of February. 1957. No one objected to that order. Certain meetings were held thereafter, but no report was made within the date fixed. On 26th of February, 1957, there was a second application on behalf of, the respondent for extension of time to the Special Referee and an order, as prayed for, was made on the 9th of April following. By that order, the time was extended till the 17th of July 1957 and at the same time the remuneration of the Special Referee was increased by fifty gold mohurs.

( 6 ) IT is against that order that the present appeal was filed. While filing this appeal, the appellant asked for a stay of the operation of the learned Judge's order, granting an extension of time, but star was refused. The respondent opposed the application for stay, but when it was pointed out that, by its own cross-objection, it had objected to the reference and therefore it was unintelligible why it should insist on the reference being continued, the learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent, stated that his client would abandon the cross-objection. Thereupon, the cross-objection

Click Here to Read the rest of this document