JUDGMENT Desai, C. J. These four Revision petitions are directed against four different orders passed by the Trial Court in the course of the same suit. Since they raise certain common questions, they have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in all these cases will be referred to in the course of this judgment as per their respective arraignment in the suit, that is, at the plaintiff and the defendants, as the case may be. 3. The petitioner in C.O. No. 3132 of 1988 and C.O. No. 3133 of 1988 is Defendant No. 8. The petitioner in C.O. No. 3138 of 1988 and C.O. No. 3139 of 1988 is the plaintiff. 4. A few facts require to be stated in order to appreciate the• controversy between the parties in these proceedings. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which these revisions petitions arise, being Title Suit No. 11 of 1988 pending in the Court of the Second Assistant District Judge, Howrah praying for the declaration of his 1/9th share in the suit property and the appointment of a Commissioner to make partition by metes and bounds and for injunction. Annexed to the plaint was the Schedule of suit property which was described with reference to its J.L. numbers, Khatian numbers and Dag numbers and its total area was mentioned in terms of acres. No description of the boundaries of the suit property was given in the Schedule. 5. The Plaintiff tendered in the Trial Court an application for amendment of the plaint on September 29, 1988. The purport of the said application was to introduce in the Schedule annexed to the plaint a description of the boundaries of the suit property. The application was taken up for hearing and Order No. 41 was passed thereon on the same day allowing the amendment as prayed and simultaneously directing the maintenance of status quo as regards the suit property as described in the application for amendment. Neither Defendant No. 8 nor his Counsel was present when the order was passed. C.O. No. 3132 of 1988 preferred by him is directed against the said Order No. 41 dated September 29, 1988. 6. Neither Defendant No. 8 nor his Counsel was present when the order was passed. C.O. No. 3132 of 1988 preferred by him is directed against the said Order No. 41 dated September 29, 1988. 6. Defendant No. 9 filed an application purporting to be one under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on or about November 25, 1988, praying that the ex parte Order No. 41 passed on September 29, 1988 be set aside/vacated and that the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint be re-heard after affording a reasonable opportunity to file written objections against the same and that meanwhile the operation of the said order be stayed. Be it stated that the case set out in the said application was that a copy of the amendment application was served on his Counsel (Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No. 9) on September 29, 1988, that Defendant No. 9 was not present in the Court on that day and that his Counsel attended the Court at 2 p.m. to oppose the said application and to pray for time to file written objections after obtaining the necessary instructions. However, the Counsel came to know then that the Presiding Officer of the Court was not available and that no hearing of the application would, therefore take place on that day. Still, however, the Counsel waited in the Court for some time but since the Counsel for the plaintiff did not turn up be left the Court under the impression that a date for hearing of the application would be fixed in due course after giving him a reasonable opportunity to file written objections against the same. We wish to make it clear that we have merely set out the substance of the averments contained in the application made by Defendant No. 9 and that we are not expressing any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the submissions therein made. A separate application was filed by Defendant No. 9 along with the aforesaid application seeking stay of the operation of Order No. 41 dated September 29, 1988. Both these applications were taken up on November 25, 1988 in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and they were adjourned to January 20, 1989 for hearing. A separate application was filed by Defendant No. 9 along with the aforesaid application seeking stay of the operation of Order No. 41 dated September 29, 1988. Both these applications were taken up on November 25, 1988 in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and they were adjourned to January 20, 1989 for hearing. Meanwhile, however the operation of Order No. 41, except that part thereof whereby the parties were directed to maintain the status quo, was stayed. The aforesaid order, being Order No. 47 dated November 25, 1988 is under the challenge in C.O. No. 3138 of 1988 at the instance of the plaintiff. 7. It will be convenient to deal first with these two Revision Petitions since the other two connected Revision Petitions depend for their determination upon the decision which we reach in these two Revision Petitions. 8. Upon a bare perusal of Order No. 41 it would appear that it was passed by the Trial Court without affording to the parties on the other side an opportunity to contest the application for amendment by filing written objections or even without affording to them an opportunity to make oral submissions in connection therewith. The order does not shown on the force of it that the Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants were present and/or were heard when it was passed. It is not even the plaintiff's case that the order was passed in the presence of the defendants Counsel. True, on September 29, 1988, a copy of the application along with the notice was served on the Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No. 9 and he was informed that the application would be moved before the Court at 2 p.m. on the same day. It is also not in dispute that a copy of the application was served similarly upon the Counsel for Defendant No. 8 and it may be presumed that a notice of the intention to move the application at 2 p.m. on the same day might also have been served upon him. It is also not in dispute that a copy of the application was served similarly upon the Counsel for Defendant No. 8 and it may be presumed that a notice of the intention to move the application at 2 p.m. on the same day might also have been served upon him. However the parties are at variance as regards what transpired when the matter was taken up at 2 p.m. The case of the Defendant No. 9 as set out in the application which led to the passing of Order No. 47 is that his Counsel appeared in the Court at 2 p.m. in order to oppose the application and to pray for time to file written objections. However, since the Presiding Officer of the Court was not available, be was given to understand that the matter would not be taken up for hearing and he left the Court under the impression that the matter would not be taken up for hearing and he left Court under the impression that the next date of hearing would be notified in due course. The case of the plaintiff, on the other hand, appears to be that the notice of the hearing of the application was duly served and that since the opposite parties remained absent, Order No. 41 came to be passed in their absence. Be that as it may, in our opinion, an order allowing the amendment could not have been passed in the manner in which it was done in the present case having regard to all the attendant circumstances. The order in question allowed an amendment being carried out in the plant with a view to introducing the description of the boundaries of the suit land in the Schedule annexed to the plaint. It is settled law that it is the description of the boundaries which ultimately prevails in case a dispute arises as to the identification of the disputed property or its measurements. There was already an allegation by the plaintiff regarding Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 having violated the order of ad-interim injunction passed earlier concerning the suit property. It is settled law that it is the description of the boundaries which ultimately prevails in case a dispute arises as to the identification of the disputed property or its measurements. There was already an allegation by the plaintiff regarding Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 having violated the order of ad-interim injunction passed earlier concerning the suit property. The precise description of the suit property along with the measurements and boundaries was thus a matter of vital significance at the stage when the amendment was allowed especially since the parties were again directed to maintain the status quo as regards the suit property as described in the amendment application. Under the circumstances, the prayer seeking introduction of the description of the boundaries of the suit property in the Schedule annexed to the plaint was not of a purely formal nature. In our opinion the Trial Court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the application for amendment ex parte on the same day on which it was presented and in finally disposing of the said proceeding in that manner. If such an order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice. 9. In support of the said order, however, reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiff upon Rules 21 and 24 of the Civil Rules and Orders Volume I, issued by the authority of this High Court (Appellate Side) for the guidance of the Civil Courts and Officers subordinate to the High Court, which read as follows : Rule 21. "In contested original suits no written statement, list of documents, or application which the Judge may consider material, shall ordinarily be filed unless copies thereof have previously been served on the pleader for each set of parties whose interests are not joint. Provided that if, for any reason, copies cannot be so served, that be filed in Court together with the original written statement, list of application. Pleaders served with such copies shall give a receipt on the original written statement, list of application. The copies shall be authenticated by the signature of the pleaders of the parties on each page on the bottom Left-hand margin". * * * * * Rule 24. "Petitions should always be taken in open Court and usually at the commencement of the daily sitting of the Court. The copies shall be authenticated by the signature of the pleaders of the parties on each page on the bottom Left-hand margin". * * * * * Rule 24. "Petitions should always be taken in open Court and usually at the commencement of the daily sitting of the Court. The majority of petitions can be disposed of by an order passed in Court as soon as they are filed. Where a reference to the record or to other papers is necessary before an order can be made, petitions should unless they are of an exceptionally urgent nature, be brought up with such record of papers on the following open day and order should then be passed in Court". 10. The argument based on the above quoted Rules was that once a copy of the application for amendment was served on the Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants it was competent to the trial Court to dispose of the same as soon as it was filed since a reference to the record or other papers was not necessary in the present case. It was urged that in view of the Rules aforesaid, Order No. 41 could not be regarded as suffering from any error affecting jurisdiction and that it could have been passed on the same day without any further formality such a fixing of a date for hearing etc. being required to be observed. We do not accept this submission. In the first place, Rule 24, which is the material Rule, contains only a guideline that majority of the petitions can be disposed of i.e. finally decided on the same day as soon as they are filed, provided reference to the record or other papers is not necessary. The guideline is not to be blindly applied or followed. The Court will have to decide in each case so far as applications are concerned, having regard to the nature of the application whether it should be disposed of straightway or whether it should be heard the next or any convenient day thereafter. Besides, read the proper perspective, the guideline will ordinarily apply when an application of a purely formal nature not touching the merits of the dispute between the parties is moved or where an urgent order is sought or where there is no contest to an application. Besides, read the proper perspective, the guideline will ordinarily apply when an application of a purely formal nature not touching the merits of the dispute between the parties is moved or where an urgent order is sought or where there is no contest to an application. An application for amendment of the plaint on the lines herein prayed cannot be regarded as one covered by the provisions of Rule 24 for the obvious reason that such an amendment, as earlier found cannot be regarded as merely of a formal nature and it could no, have been allowed without giving a reasonable opportunity to all the defendants to have their say. Any other interpretation of Rule 24 would be opposed to the principles of natural justice by which all judicial proceedings in a court of law are governed. In the next place, a reference to the record was necessary before the application could have been allowed in the present case so as to ascertain, inter alia, whether a new and inconsistent case was sought to be made out by the proposed amendment and therefore also the application could not have been granted on the same day. In the last place upon a literal interpretation, the guideline was not applicable since the application was not moved at the commencement of the daily sitting and it should not, therefore, have been allowed ex parte. 11. So far as O. No. 47 is concerned, we do not see any informity therein. In view of the application filed by Defendant No. 9 for vacating the previous Order (Order No. 41), the Trial Court fixed the matter for hearing on a specified date and, meanwhile, the operation of Order No. 41 was stayed except that part which directed the parties to maintain the status quo. On the facts in the circumstances of the case, the order is not only not in excess of or without jurisdiction but just and equitable. In view of the fact that the parties were directed to maintain the status quo till the application was heard no prejudice was likely to be caused to any of them. 12. For the foregoing reasons, C.O. No. 3132 of 1988 is allowed and Order No. 41 passed on September 19, 1988 is set aside, C.O. No. 3138 of 1988 is, however, rejected. 12. For the foregoing reasons, C.O. No. 3132 of 1988 is allowed and Order No. 41 passed on September 19, 1988 is set aside, C.O. No. 3138 of 1988 is, however, rejected. In the interest of Justice, the Trial Court is directed to fix the hearing of the application for amendment at an early date and to dispose of the same preferably within a month. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Before parting with the cases we may make it clear that none of the observations made hereinabove will be regarded as touching the merits of the dispute between the parties as to the application for amendment. 14. Turning next to C.O. No. 3133 of 1988 and C.O. No. 3139 of 1988, the first of which has been filed by Defendant No. 8 and the second by the plaintiff; the material facts are set out hereinbelow :- On or about August 29, 1988, the plaintiff filed an application purporting to have been made under Order 39 Rule 7 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that despite the order of prohibitory injunction issued on February 19, 1988, Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 had raised further construction after the injunction was issued and seeking the appointment of an Advocate as local Commissioner to hold inspection and to submit a report to the Court. The application was opposed on behalf of Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 who filed written objections on the ground, inter alia, that inspection had been carried out earlier and that since the precise location of the land in dispute was yet to be ascertained, the local inspection was not necessary again and that no construction on the suit property or any part thereof was made in violation of the prohibitory injunction. It was clarified on their behalf that since the precise boundary of the disputed hind was not ascertained, no local inspection would be helpful. The Trial Court overruled these objections since it was of the view that in the light of the grant of amendment applicable, which described the suit land with reference to boundaries, there would be difficulty in ascertaining, whether or not any construction was carried out on the suit land in violation of the prohibitory injunction. Besides, the appointment of Local Commissioner would not prejudice the defendants and would enable a proper adjudication of the case. Besides, the appointment of Local Commissioner would not prejudice the defendants and would enable a proper adjudication of the case. Hence Order No. 45 dated November 17, 1988 allowing the said application. 15. It is apparent that in passing Order No. 45, the Trial Court mainly took into consideration the fact that the amendment of the plaint, whereby the description of boundaries of the suit land was introduced in the Schedule annexed to the plaint, was granted. The said Order No. 41 allowing the amendment has now been set aside. Under these circumstances, it appears to be just and expedient also to quash Order No. 45 dated November 17, 1988, which his more or less dependent upon Order No. 41, with a direction to the Trial Court to fix the hearing of the application for appointment of Local Commissioner after fresh disposal of the application for amendment. We wish to clarify that we are expressing no opinion on the merits of the said application. C.O. No. 3133 of 1988 is, accordingly, allowed in terms aforesaid. 16. On or about November 24, 1988, Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 filed an application purporting to be one under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for stay of further proceedings in terms of Order No. 45 dated November 17, 1988 so as to enable them to approach this Court in revision. The application was allowed by Order No. 46 dated November 24, 1988 and the operation of Order No. 45 was stayed till December 23, 1988. This order is under challenge in C.O. No. 3139 of 1988 filed by the plaintiff. 17. In view of the order in the aforesaid terms passed in C.O. No. 3133 of 1988, C.O. No. 3139 of 1988 does not survive and it stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs in any of these cases. Sengupta, J. : I agree.