The appellant, basing his right to possession of the suit property on a lease executed in 1935, filed the suit out of which this civil miscellaneous appeal arises. The District Munsiff decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to somewhat different conclusions on questions of fact; and admitted in evidence certain documents tendered by the defendant. He then said:

“I should think that the matter requires re-consideration as to whether the defendant is entitled to a permanent tenancy so long as he pays rent or so long as he renders services. I find that in the interests of justice the suit should be remanded.”

The learned advocate for the appellant attacks this order on two grounds: (1) that the documents were improperly admitted, and (2) that in any event, the provisions of Order 41, rule 23 were not complied with and that the remand order was wrong.

The order admitting the documents was this:

“I find that these documents are material for the purpose of deciding the defence of the defendant . . . .”

There is nothing in this order which indicates that the learned Judge gave his mind to the requirements of Order 41, rule 27. It is difficult to fit these wo