PRAGASH SINGH Vs. MADAN MOHAN PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants. The short facts are these : The plaintiffs respondents instituted a suit against the appellants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2795/-, besides interest, on the basis of two handnotes alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1 as the karta of the family for legal necessity and family benefit. The suit was contested by the appellants on the ground that they never took any loan from the plaintiffs nor did defendant No. 1 execute the handnotes in question. It was pleaded that the handnotes were forged. The trial Court accepted the defence version of the case, and dismissed the suit. On appeal bv the plaintiffs, the lower appellate court remanded the case to the trial Court for getting the signatures of defendant No. 1 on the handnotes examined by a handwriting expert and for the evidence of that handwriting expert. After remand, file signatures were com-pared by a handwriting expert, who was also examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and ultimately the trial court decreed the suit. The appellants came up in appeal before the lower appellate Court, but that appeal was dismissed. They have therefore, presented this appeal in this Court.

(2.) The only point taken by Mr. P. R. Das, appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of the appeal is that the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court was without jurisdic-tion, and, therefore, the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs after remand is a nullity. The contention appears to be sound, and, in my opinion, must prevail.

(3.) In support of the above contention, an argument has been pressed "that the order of remand was not in accordance with the provisions of [the Code of Civil Procedure and was, therefore, without jurisdiction. Before dealing with that question, it may however, be necessary to notice the order of remand itself. The learned subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal and made the order of remand, stated in his judgment as follows :