RAHIMUDDIN AHMED Vs. PATESWARI DEKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. T. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. None appears on behalf of the Respondents on call.

(2.) The instant appeal is directed against the order dtd. 28/9/2007 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi in Misc. Appeal No.3/2000 whereby the learned First Appellate Court confirmed the order of the learned Munsiff dtd. 30/5/2000 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.20/99 but remanded the matter back to the learned Trial Court to ascertain the quantum of mesne profit by making enquiry.

(3.) From the materials on record, it reveals that this Court vide an order dtd. 20/6/2013 had admitted the instant appeal by formulating a substantial question of law. With due respect to my learned predecessor, the said formulation of substantial question of law does not arise in a proceedings of the present nature taking into account that this appeal has been filed in terms with Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") read with Sec. 104 of the Code. Formulation of a substantial question of law would only arise in a case which falls within the ambit of Sec. 100 of the Code which is not the case in the instant proceedings. This Court however taking into account the order dtd. 20/6/2013 constricts itself only to the admission of the appeal and nothing further. Under such circumstances, let this Court take note of as to whether any interference is required to the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court in the instant proceedings. For the said purpose, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal.