1. In this case four issues were framed. The Munsif decided the first issue in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Now the first issue was an issue which, if decided in favour of the defendants, finally disposed of the suit. If on the other hand it was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, it left other issues undetermined, and the suit, therefore, came up to the Appellate Court in the condition that if the first issue was wrongly decided, the remaining issues had not been decided at all, and it was necessary to decide them.' Having regard to the previous deoisionsiu this Court and particularly to the decision in Mata Din v. Jamna Das (1), we think that that was a preliminary point within the meaning of Order XLI, Rule 23. Jt is most import: ant that on these questi ns of practice the decisions of the Court should be consistent. 'We think, therefore, that the case was a proper one for remand under that order. A further point has been suggested that the Appellate Court improperly admitted additional evidence, but there seems to be no force in that point although it was put in the forefront of the memorandum of appeal.(1) 27 A. 691 : A. W. N. (1905) 159 : 2 A. L.J. 685.We are not disposing of the suit, which still remains to be decided on the result of issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the Munsif's Court.
2. This appeal must be dismissed with costs.