KALIPADA DINDA Vs. KARTICK CHANDRA HAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is by the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 of the original suit against the decision of a Subordinate Judge, Midnapur in a first appeal remanding the case back to the trial Court of the Munsif for the rehearing of the suit.

(2.) The opposite party-plaintiff Kartick Hait brought the original suit against several defendants for declaration of his title to some of the properties mentioned in the plaint and for partition of the suit properties, separate possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction. Of the defendants only the petitioners before this Court filed written statements and contested the suit challenging the allegations of the plaintiff. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence disbelieved the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff and rejected the story that the plaintiff had any title to the disputed lands as alleged and held the contesting defendants' case as acceptable. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit. In the appeal taken by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge found insufficient evidence on the question of a previous partition set up by the defendants for any decision although he did not consider all facts and circumstances. According to him, there was no decision on issue No. 6 and the trial Court came to a decision on the question of title and possession without any issue in that respect. The learned Subordinate Judge passed order for remand for the learned Munsif to rehear the suit giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. Against this order for remand, the present application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Kundu, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Panda for the plaintiff-opposite party.