Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of remand passed in Title Appeal No.6 of 2010 dated 10th November, 2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Rampurhat, Birbhum. By passing the impugned judgment, the learned Judge in First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of Title Suit No.219 of 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum. The learned Judge remanded the suit back to the trial court with a direction to decide an issue as to whether the defendant had sublet the suit shop room in favour of defendant No.2 or not.
(2.) Before dealing with the respective cases of the parties, I am inclined to record at the outset that on perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts below I find that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court as well as the judgment and order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court suffer from gross perversity, non consideration of the principles of statute and lack of fundamentals of legal principles.
(3.) At the time of hearing argument, learned advocate for the appellants draws my attention to the order dated 6th February, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court admitting the appeal for hearing. However, the Division Bench of this Court has not framed any substantial question of law. It is now well settled in view of the provision contained in Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure that the first miscellaneous appeal is required to be heard on substantial questions of law. Therefore, before taking up hearing of the instant matter this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law invoking the principle of Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure.:- (i) Whether the learned Appellate Court substantially erred in law in remanding the suit for trial after formulating an issue of subletting when there is no pleading whatsoever against the defendant No.1 that she had sublet or parted with possession of the suit shop room in favour of the defendant No.2? (ii) Whether the learned Judge in First Appellate Court substantially erred in law in upholding the finding of the trial Judge on the issue of reasonable requirement?;