1. In this case a plaint was, in the first instance, put in by the Collector of Tanjore as Manager of the Mangalavilas Estate asking for the ejectment of the 1st defendant from certain property. The 1st defendant alleged inter alia that the Collector had no authority to sue on behalf of the estate. This plea failed before the District Munsif, but was allowed on appeal, the appellate court directing that the members of the Mangalavilas should be placed on record as plaintiffs m substitution for the Collector and sending the case back to the court of the District Munsif for fresh disposal. Against the order, there was an appeal to the High Court, and owing to the non-receipt of the records from that court, the suit had to be adjourned to 14th May. The case was taken up on 17th May and on that day the defendants' pleader put in a fresh written statement and asked for a de novo trial. This the District Munsif, who was not the same District Munsif as disposed of the suit as originally framed, refused and his refusal was upheld in appeal. We think the prayer of the defendants' vakil should have been granted. It may, we think, be doubted whether Section 191 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) would apply to a case like the present, in as much as the first District Munsif did in fact conclude the trial of the suit that came Defore himIf S91 does not apply, no other provision of law has been indicated to us under which the new then, the District Munsif could deal with the evidence taken by his predecessor. We observe that the Collector's name has not been struck out of the record as it should have been. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below, and remand the snit to the court of the District Munsjf for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event.