absolutely incorrect and against the settled position of law relating to power of remand. It was contended that the first appellate court was not justified in remanding the matter only on issue Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12 and, in case if it felt that the matter was required to be remanded back, the entire suit should have been remanded back and the piecemeal remand has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant. It was also contended that there were serious contradictions in the statements of PW-2 Ladu Ram and PW-5 Chimna Ram Suthar and, therefore, the learned trial court was justified in its finding on issue No.2. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove his title. It was further submitted that the very fact that the father and power of attorney holder of the plaintiff was a Police Officer at the time of alleged execution of the rent note dated 01.02.1973, the findings on issues No.8 and 9 relating to the execution of rent note Exhibit-2 under threat and undue influence and the same being without consideration is well proved and, therefore, reversal of findings on those issues are also without any basis and incorrect. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and defendant, inasmuch as, no receipt of rent etc. was produced and consequently the judgment passed by the first appellate court deserves to be set aside and in any case, the judgment of piecemeal remand deserves to be quashed and set aside.
