S A RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. PPPALANIAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the order of remand made by this Court in Appeals Nos. 57 and 235 of 1933. The applications, have been made under Section 109, Clause (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the question which we are called upon to decide is whether in passing the remand order we passed a final order within the meaning of the term "final order" as used in Clause (a) of the section.

(2.) The above appeals arose out of a suit for accounts. The lower Court's decree was reversed and the suit was remanded for further enquiry. The suit was upon a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 60,000 in which the plaintiff and the defendants were interested in the proportion of 5/17 : 2/17. The promissory note was in the possession of the defendants and they had the obligation to collect the amount due under it. One of the questions which arose in the case was, what was the rate of interest due under the note and how it should be calculated. The document mentioned no particular rate of interest beyond stating that it carried the Rangoon nadapu rate . The learned Subordinate Judge determined that interest should be calculated at the Rangoon nadapu rate calculating compound interest with half yearly rests. We decided that the plaintiff should be allowed to claim only simple interest at the Rangoon nadapu rate. The point was not seriously contested before us by the learned Advocate-General who appeared for the plaintiff. After deciding this question of interest we remanded the suit to the lower Court for disposal in the light of our observation on the other points involved in the case. At the end of our judgment we observed as follows: After receiving the Commissioner's report the learned Judge will fix a time for objections and after due consideration of the report and the objections he will pass a final decree for the amount ultimately found due from the defendants to the plaintiff calculating simple interest at the Rangoon nadapu rate till the date of the decree.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the defendants contended amongst other things that certain collections under the promissory note had been made by the plaintiff and that certain securities which were entrusted to him were still With him. They also contended that no money would be found due from them if an account was taken.