( 1 ) THESE two appeals involve two questions- (1) whether the trial Court could proceed with the hearing of the application for amendment of the plaint and allow amendments thereof in view of the order staying the suit passed by this Court and (2) whether the amendments allowed by the trial Judge are justified on merits. An affirmative answer to both the questions will entail dismissal of the appeal while a negative answer to any of the questions would require us to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order allowing amendments.

( 2 ) THE suit giving rise to tire impugned order under these two appeals has been filed by the respondent R. M. Investment and Trading Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as R. M. I.) against the appellant Boeing Company (hereinafter referred to as Boeing) being Suit No. 363 of 1990 in the Original Side of this Court. There was an agreement, labelled as "consultant Service Agreement," between the appellant Boeing and the respondent R. M. I. whereunder R. M. I. was to promote sales of the commercial aircrafts of the Boeing to parties within the territories of India on condition of certain remuneration payab