J Chandrachud : If Order 7 Rule 11 is allowed, why are we spending time over this?
Sr Adv Ranjit Kumar : The order which is under challenge has worked itself out.
J Chandrachud : The challenge to the order appointing commissioner overlaps with Order 7 Rule 11. If O 7 R 11 is dismissed, he still has scope to challenge order appointing commissioner.
J Chandrachud : But in case you fail your Order 7 Rule 11 challenge, then to cause no prejudice, we can keep this SLP pending, we can post this SLP after vacation and in the meantime the Order 7 Rule 11 can be taken up.
J Chandrachud : There's another way of doing it. You have challenged the order of appointing the commissioner & if we dispose of the SLP there would be finality to that order.
Ahmadi : The damage has already been done.
DYC J: We hold the balance and we have created a sense. The need for fraternity which is crucial in our minds as well and there is need to balance. Our interim order will preserve that sense in the ground.
DYC J : We cannot allow the trial court to run amok
Ahmadi : It has already run amok.
DYC J: If we hold in your favour, they are ousted from their argument but if we accept their submission, you will be ousted. Is it right for the SC to do? We have to adopt fair process across the board.
DYC J : Our difficulty is that to accept that argument we'll have to comment on the maintainability of the suit which has to be decided. Their argument is that to decide Order 7 Rule 11 application, you have to open the Commission report.
DYC J : The moment you argue that the appointment of Commissioner is void ab initio because the suit is barred by the Act, it is far fetched, because we can't decide the maintainability of suit here. Your submission overlaps with the Order 7 Rule 11 application.
DYC J : If we accept your submission that the appointment of the commissioner was in breach of the provision of 1991 act & is without jurisdiction...
Ahmadi : My submission is different, the suit could not have proceeded.