JUDGMENT
1. In this case it is absolutely imperative to interfere in the interests of justice. We think that technically there is no appeal because the order was certainly not under Order XLI, Rule 13, indeed it was an order which could not reasonably be made under any provision of any Code, but it did not purport to be under Order XLI, Rule 23. It was in fast a general order of remand on the ground of the mishandling of the trial in 'the first Court. From that order no appeal lien to this Court. On the other hand, where the Judge has so entirely misunderstood his own duties, misread the issue in the case and in substance declined jurisdiction, we are justified in interfering on the lines of the decision in Raghunandan Singh v. Jadunandan Singh 43 Ind. Cas. 959 : 3 P.L.J. 253 : 4 P.L.W. 450.
2. The case must go bask to the lower Appellate Court to hear and determine and appeal. If for no other reason, we should be compelled to interfere in order to remove the impression sought to be treated by the learned Judge that in a case of cross-accounts between traders and their commission agenda, it is necessary for the Trial Court to sat up the accounts into a variety of different transactions and settle issues dealing with each transaction. We think the learned Munaif dealt dealt this case not only in a reasonable way, but in the only reasonable way in which sash a case san be tried, namely, by deciding after an investigation of the accounts and the evidence whether any amount and if so, how mush is due from the defendant to the plaintiff.
3. We allow the appeal and remand the case to the lower Appellate Court to restore it to its pending file and to dispose of it upon the issue originally settled by the Munsif. Under the circumstances the costs of this appeal will be costs in the suit, costs in this Court on the higher sale.