Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Sec. 100–Second appeal against the decree of possession–High Court did not frame any substantial question of law in relation to findings of Courts below, however, observed that the suit was misconceived as the plaintiff was required to file the suit under the provisions of tenancy laws–Whether proper ?–Held, no.
(i) Respondent did not raise the plea of tenancy in written statement.
(ii) There was no occasion for trial Court to frame such issue.
(iii) Courts below were having no occasion for recording the findings over this issue.
(iv) Concerned party was required to lay it’s factual foundation in the pleadings and invite the finding on such plea.
(v) High Court failed to see the case set up by respondent in written statement.
