Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 25

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 18th November 1969, in Second Appeal No. 542 of 1964). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 25-Remand Trial Court disposing of issue whether a particular party was necessary party by just saying it was not, and neither considering relevant decisions on point nor giving other cogent reason-First Appellate Court even snot touching point-Remand order passed by High Court, in circumstances, held, neither illegal nor without jurisdiction. Province of East Pakistan v. The Secretary, Muktagacha Abbasia Senior Madrassa P L D 1964 S C 401 and Aminbag Co operative Market Society Ltd. v. The Province of East Pakistan P L D 1967 Dacca 128 ref. Date of hearing : 23rd June 1970. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal to challenge the propriety of an order of remand passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan in a second appeal. The said second appeal arose in the following circumstances :- The petitioner instituted a suit against the respondents for recovery of arrears of house rent on the ground that the latter were his monthly tenants on the basis of an agreement in writing for a period of one year and 8 months from 1st of Falgun, 1358 B. S. at a monthly rental of Rs. 26. The arrears claimed were for the period Sraban, 1365 B. S. to Sraban, 1368 B. S. The defendants admitted the agreement but alleged that the rent was only Rs. 12 per month and further that the tenancy was frustrated as the hut was destroyed by fire within the period of the lease. Thereafter, the petitioner did not re-erect the hut in spite of demands. The respondents erected a chappra at their own expense and have been carrying on their business therein for 7/8 years. In paragraph 7 of the written statement it was furthermore, pleaded that since the suit land appertained to a Gandi Mohal, the Government of East Pakistan had acquired that interest under the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, and so the title of the petitioner in the suit lands had ceased to exist. The defendants claimed that they had since been recorded as…