JUDGMENT
1. The District Munsif appears to have looked at a receipt and construed it as a settlement out of court and upon it determined.the issue whether the settlement after suit is true, but he did not exhibit it as evidence in the suit or take other evidence. It is not now alleged that this course was taken by consent of the parties or that the parties agreed that the matter should be disposed of on the construction of the receipt alone.
2. The District Judge appears to have seen the receipt and considered that it is not a record of the terms of a settlement between the parties, and holding that the plaintiff should be allowed to prove that the document presented only a partial settlement; he has remanded the suit for re-hearing and disposal.
3. Before us it is contended that the District Munsif having determined the issue as to the settlement has not disposed of the suit on a preliminary point, and that therefore the District Judge had no power to order a remand.
But the decision in Kuppalan v. Kunjuvalli (1911) 9 M.L.T. 373 is an authority for holding that there are cases in which an order of remand may be made even where the disposal has not gone on a point which can strictly be called a preliminary point, and this we think is one of those cases. Here there seems to have been no regular hearing of the matter and the evidence on which the disposal was made was not placed on the record. This procedure is so irregular that we think an order for a complete retrial, is required and on that ground we confirm the decision of the District Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.
