MALAYATH VEETIL RAMAN Vs. CKRISHNAN NAMBUDRIPAD (DEAD); KRISHNAN NAMBUDRIPAD, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Munsif held in this suit that the true construction of a service grant was clear and that evidence of the consideration for that grant and of whether services were in fact rendered or not was irrelevant. On appeal, the Subordinate judge took a different view of the construction of the grant and held that such evidence was relevant. He accordingly remanded the case with that direction to be determined according to law. On appeal to the High Court from that order of remand a preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, and it was also contended that the Subordinate Judge had no power lo remand the case. The High Court has referred those matters for determination to a Full Bench. The questions are of general interest as they raise points of procedure which have frequently arisen and have resulted in a conflict of judicial decision.

(2.) The right, of appeal is by Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 expressly limited to cases enunciated in that section or expressly provided for by the rules.

(3.) The rule giving a right of appeal is Order 43 which includes as appealable an order under Order 41 Rule 23 remanding a case.