JUDGMENT This application is at the instance of the landlord against the order passed by the Additional District Judge,. 10th Court, Alipore, allowing the application for the amendment of the written statement against an application under section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. The petitioner purchased the suit premises on 10th February, 1967, from Sardar Sampuran Singh, Sardar Karan Singh, Sardar Nachettar Singh. The said landlords gave a letter of attornment to the opposite parties and by such purchase it is alleged that the Petitioner became the absolute owner of the property and she made an application for eviction of the opposite parties for her own use and occupation as the petitioner has no house of her own. The Thika Controller by an order dated 24th June, 1974, allowed the application on condition that the petitioner shall deposit with the Thika Controller or pay to the opposite parties such compensation as may be agreed upon. Being aggrieved, the opposite parties appealed. In the said appeal, the said opposite parties filed an application for amendment of written statement, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the property in question. That application was rejected by an order, being Order No. 9, dated 2nd August, 1974 by the learned District Judge, Alipore. It appears that against the said order, the opposite parties moved this Court under section 115 of the Code of. Civil Procedure on 20th August, 1974, "and this Court was pleased to reject the said application on the following terms : "Civil Order No. 2854 of 1974 issued by this Court. In the matter of an application under section 115, Civil Procedure, Code. And in the matter of; I. Sm. Peary Debi widow of late Rajkumar Patwar, 2. Sri Gopal Patwar, both residing at No. 16. Dr. Rajendra Road, P. S. Bhowanipore, Calcutta-25....... Petitioners. Vs. Sm. Sulata Roy Chowdhury, wife of Ajit Kumar Roy Chowdhury residing at No. 3/1, Tndra Roy Road, P.S. Bhowanipore, Calcutta-25.......Opposite Party. In Re: Sm. Peary Debi & another......Petitioners. Mr. Tarak Nath Roy for petitioners. This application is rejected. But the application which the appellant petitioners filled before the learned District Judge for amendment of their written statement filed before the Thika Controller, will be reconsidered by him at the time of hearing of the appeal itself. The 20.8.74. A. K De". The learned Additional District Judge. Mr. Tarak Nath Roy for petitioners. This application is rejected. But the application which the appellant petitioners filled before the learned District Judge for amendment of their written statement filed before the Thika Controller, will be reconsidered by him at the time of hearing of the appeal itself. The 20.8.74. A. K De". The learned Additional District Judge. 10th Court, while hearing the appeal considered the above quoted observation and allowed the application for amendment of the written statement The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. 2. It appears that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the opposite parties was considered by the Thika Controller and was held in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Roy contended that the opposite party being the tenant under the petitioner, cannot challenge the title of the petitioner landlord. In my opinion, this proposition of law cannot be doubted at all. 3. It further appears that on application being made for amendment of the written statement by tenant the learned District Judge by his order dated 2nd August, 1974 rejected the application for amendment. It was held therein that the respondent (petitioner herein) "if she can show that she is a landlord of the disputed holding she is entitled to succeed and the question of ownership does not arise at all". Against this order the opposite party in this application moved this Court in its revisional jurisdiction and the said order of the rejection of the application for amendment was upheld by this Court but with the observation as aforesaid. The opposite party therefrom went back to the court of appeal below and pressed the application for amendment at the hearing of the appeal and the Court of appeal below construed the observation made as if "it is a direction for hearing afresh the question of amendment". It must be stated that the opposite party filed a fresh petition proposing the amendment in the written statement before the appellate court again and the petitioner filed objection against the above petition and appellate court considered the fresh petition proposing amendment in the written statement and allowed it. It must be stated that the opposite party filed a fresh petition proposing the amendment in the written statement before the appellate court again and the petitioner filed objection against the above petition and appellate court considered the fresh petition proposing amendment in the written statement and allowed it. In my opinion, the order was passed by the court while rejecting the application against the order of rejection of the proposed amendment and the observation made without issuing a notice on the other side and without issuing a rule, is against all canons of law. This practice creates difficulties for the parties who are not represented before this Court though orders are passed to the prejudice of the non-appearing parties. In this case the rule was not issued but the observation was made which for all practical purposes nulified the order that was passed by the learned District Judge on the application for amendment of written statement in absence of petitioner landlord in respect of a matter in which the order was passed in his favour. 5. Mr. A. Roy contended that the order having been already made by the District Judge in favour of the petitioner landlord this cannot be set at naught by this Court without even issuing a rule and without hearing the petitioner landlord in whose favour the order was passed. 6. Mr. p, C. Roy on behalf of the opposite party could not support the order passed by this Court in absence of the petitioner but he argued that this order was passed on a fresh petition filed by the tenant. If an order has already been passed on a similar application for proposed amendment another Judge sitting on concurrent jurisdiction and hearing the appeal cannot set aside that order and make a fresh order allowing the amendment. The real difficulty arose for the Additional District Judge in view of the observation made by this Court while rejecting the application moved in its revisional jurisdiction by the: tenant and the learned Additional District Judge hearing the application has no option but to follow the direction of this Hon'ble Court. The real difficulty arose for the Additional District Judge in view of the observation made by this Court while rejecting the application moved in its revisional jurisdiction by the: tenant and the learned Additional District Judge hearing the application has no option but to follow the direction of this Hon'ble Court. In my opinion, however, such direction without issuing of a rule and Without hearing the parties who may be prejudiced-by the order is not only not binding on the parties but is also not binding on the subordinate courts', these observations are, to say the least, obiter. The practice, if any, of issuing directions while, rejecting the application in a Civil Revisional Case without issuing a rule has no legal basis. 7. In the facts of the present case, the application for amendment which has already been rejected by the learned District Judge by his order dated 2nd August, 1974 cannot be reconsidered after the application for revision have been rejected by this Court in the appeal itself and must be construed to have become final for the purpose of the appeal. I, therefore, set aside the order passed in appeal, being order No. 21 dated 24th February, 1975 and direct that the appeal, filed by the appellant in Misc. Appeal No.447 of 1975 be disposed of by the appellate Court below at an early date but not beyond 3 months from the Case of arrival of the records in the Court below. I further direct that the appeal will be disposed of by the learned District Judge, 24-Parganas, himself in his own file. Let the records go down to the Court below at once. The rule is made absolute.