MUKTI SENGUPTA Vs. GOLAK SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications for review of the judgment dated March 15, 2012 passed by this Bench in S.A. No.399 of 2005 are now the subject matter before this Bench.

(2.) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant of S.A. No.399 of 2005 has contended that the application for review being R.V.W. No.96 of 2012 has been filed by his client stating, inter alia, that while disposing of the second appeal, this Bench has made clear observations as to the ground of reasonable requirement that the findings of the Courts below should not be interfered with. But, on the basis of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., the matter was sent back on remand holding that the learned Trial Judge shall hear out the application for amendment of the plaint, if filed and to dispose of the same within a reasonable time after giving an opportunity to the defendant to file a written objection thereon and thereafter, he shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. So, it was a matter of limited remand. It should be clearly observed accordingly.

(3.) Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that the order of setting aside of the judgments of the Courts below cannot be supported and appropriate orders should be passed. He has also contended that the remand should be on limited matter, i.e., as to cause of action as indicated in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and the learned Trial Judge should be directed to hear out the matter on limited remand only. So, the application for review has been filed.