https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126821 An interlocutory remand order that does not finally terminate the proceedings may be challenged in an appeal from the final order, and it does not attract res judicata in the same way as a final decree or order. The Court also held that section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was not available in pending proceedings after the amending law took effect, so the statutory rescission procedure could not continue to govern those matters. On that basis, the order rescinding the ejectment decree could not stand, the High Court's view was rejected, and the landlord's appeal succeeded. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:13:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126821 An interlocutory remand order that does not finally terminate the proceedings may be challenged in an appeal from the final order, and it does not attract res judicata in the same way as a final decree or order. The Court also held that section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was not available in pending proceedings after the amending law took effect, so the statutory rescission procedure could not continue to govern those matters. On that basis, the order rescinding the ejectment decree could not stand, the High Court's view was rejected, and the landlord's appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126821