ORDER

Hari Swarup, J. - (sic) has been filed against an order (sic) Plaintiff Din Dayal had filed (sic) recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from decree (sic) Roop Chand or from any (sic) ant who may be liable. The (sic) framed four issues, which are as follows:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is a co-sharer in the disputed bus? If so, what is his share?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim his share of profits? If so, what and against which of the Defendants?

3. Whether the suit is sot maintainable as alleged in para 26 of the written statement and para. 2 of the Additional W.S. ?

4. Plaintiff's relief ? The trial court decided the first issue in favour of the Plaintiff and found that Sit he Plaintiff was a co-sharer in the bus and the permit to the extent of one-fourth share Issue No. 3 was decided against the Plaintiff and hints held that the suit was not maintainable. Issues 2 and 4 were not decided in view of the decision on issue No. 3.

2. Plaintiff went up in appeal and the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court on issue No. 3. It held that the suit) was maintainable and was not barred by Section 59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On that finding it reminded the case to the t