1. On a perusal of the records and after hearing both sides, the substantial questions of law re-framed are as follows:

i. Are not the defendants under a duty and obligation to maintain a public road in good condition and to place a sign board in case of any danger? Will not a failure to do so fasten a liability on the State in tort to compensate a person for the injuries sustained on account of such breach?

ii. Whether the 1st defendant State is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees?

iii. Whether the plaintiff's suit for compensation for injuries sustained in an accident can be regarded as a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “the Code”) merely because an application for issuance of a commission was filed along with the suit?

iv. What is the legal effect of the trial court's omission to order return of plaint under the Proviso to Section 80(2) of the Code, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted to the plaintiff in a suit against the Government?

2. In order to resolve the controversy, it is essential to