1. This is, a suit for ejectment by a patnidar, and thedefence is that the defendant is a tenant under one Anandmoy Dutt, a se-patnidarand dar-patnidar, who is entitled to the land.

2. The suit was decreed by the Munsif.

3. On appeal the learned District Judge held that AnandmoyDutt should be brought in as defendant, and, remanded the case for re trial onthe question of title between him and the plaintiffs. The only question thatarises in the appeal is whether the learned District Judge was right inremanding the case.

4. It appears to us that, although Anandmoy Dutt, may not bean absolutely necessary party to the suit, the learned District Judge wascertainly entitled to hold that his presence was necessary to enable the Courteffectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questionsinvolved in the suit, within the meaning of Order I, Rule 10, of the Code ofCivil Procedure. In other words, Anandmoy Dutt whether a necessary party ornot, was a very proper party to the suit under the circumstances of thisparticular case.

5. Taking that view, the learned District Judge was entitledto remand the case for trial, and on this point, we may refer to the cases ofHabib Bakhsh v. Baldeo Prasad 23 A. 167 and Tohra Bibi v. Zobeda Khatun: 12 C.L.J. 368 : 7 Ind. Cas. 75. The appeal must bedismissed with costs. This decision will govern appeal from Appellate OrdersNos. 595 and 596 of 1909. We assess the hearing fen in each case at one goldmohur.

.

Upendra Chandra Mandalvs. Shaikh Sabhan (21.06.1911 -CALHC)