DURGA PROSAD GOENKA Vs. DEBIDUTT SARAFF
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Durga Prosad Goenka
Click here to view full judgement.
Thadani, C.J. -
(1.) THIS is a second miscellaneous appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, L.A. D., dated 27 -6 -50, by which be set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit force -trial. The order of remand is in these terms:
Therefore, for the ends of justice, I should set aside the judgment and decree and remand the suit for trial afresh after impleading the heir of Ganeshdas amending the plaint by giving descriptions and boundaries of the land on which the house is situated and also framing of the necessary issues as indicated above. The defendant appellant should be given an opportunity to file a fresh M.S., if necessary, and thereafter the salt should be disposed of according to law. The costs will abide by the result of the suit after it is heard afresh.
(2.) AS a matter of caution, the appellant has also made an application under S. 115, Civil P.C. The plaintiff Durgaprosad Goenka brought a suit against the defendant Debidutt Saraff for ejectment from the house leased to him, and for arrears of rent and damages. The defence to the suit was that the defendant himself did not take the lease of the house from the plaintiff, but that it was the firm of Messrs. Pokarmall Laduram who rented the house from Messrs Ganeshdas Sreeram; the name of the firm of Pokarmall Laduram was changed to Ghasiram Debidutt, Pokarmall being the father of the defendant and Laduram, a son of a brother of Pokarmall.
(3.) ON the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :
1. Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of parties?
2. Whether the defendant has defaulted rents ? If so is he liable for arrears of rent with damages, as alleged in the plaint ?
3. Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted ?
4. To what relief, If any, is the plaintiff entitled ?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.