Partial rejection of a plaint is impermissible; disputed land-boundary issues were remanded for fresh findings.

Partial rejection of a plaint was treated as impermissible because the relevant civil procedure provision contemplated rejection only when its full requirements were not met, not rejection of part of the plaint alone. The plaintiff was to proceed to trial on the framed issues, with the claim to be tested on evidence and decided on merits if unproved. Where final disposal of the disputed relief depended on findings about the land boundaries, extent, and alleged excess area, the matter required further evidence, and issues 1 and 4 were remanded to the trial court for fresh findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court below was justified in rejecting a portion of the plaint under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the findings on issues 1 and 4 should be remanded to the court of first instance for determination.

Issue (i): Whether the court below was justified in rejecting a portion of the plaint under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The provision relied upon contemplated rejection of a plaint only where the requirements of that section were not complied with. It did not authorise rejection of only a part of the plaint. The plaintiff should have been allowed to proceed to trial on the framed issues and, if unable to establish the claim on evidence, the claim could then be defeated on merits.

Conclusion: The partial rejection of the plaint was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings on issues 1 and 4 should be remanded to the court of first instance for determination.

Analysis: As the disputed relief could not be finally disposed of without findings on the boundaries and extent of the land and on the alleged excess area, the matter required further evidence and determination by the trial court. The appellate court therefore directed a remand under Section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure for findings on the specified issues.

Conclusion: Issues 1 and 4 were remanded for findings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the improper partial rejection was set aside and the specified issues were sent back for fresh findings by the court of first instance.

---