JUDGMENT 1. THE First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1984, passed by the learned Additional district Judge, 5th Court Alipore, 24 parganas, in Title Appeal No. 897 of 1983, reversing those, dated 13. 9. 83, passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 386 of 1980. By the said judgment and decree the learned Additional District Judge remanded the case to the learned Munsif for retrial on all issues except issue Nos. 3 and 4 which were as follows :-'issue No. 3 is the notice to quit, legal, valid and properly served'. 'issue No. 4 is the defendant a defaulter. ' the tenant is the appellant before this court. 2. SHORTLY put, the relevant facts are that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises where the defendant was a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 150/' -. As the plaintiff required the. suit premises lor her own use and for the use of the persons for whose benefits the premises had been held, by a notice, dated 25. 7. 80, the defendant's tenancy had been determined with effect from 1st of October, 1980. Since the defendant did not vacate, inspite of service of such notice, the aforesaid suit had been instituted. The said suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement and denying all material allegations in the plaint. It was contended, inter alia, on behalf of the defendant that the suit having been instituted on the basis of a notice to quite, which was preceded by another notice to quit, the suit was not maintainable. 3. THE learned munsif by his judgment decreed the suit upon finding, inter alia, that the notice to quit on which the suit was based was legal, valid and had been properly served and that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for her own use and for the use of the members of her family. As far as the issue No. 4 was concerned the same was recorded as not pressed and it was noted that there was no averment of default against the defendant in the plaint itself. The defendant, thereafter, preferred the above Title Appeal challenging the propriety of the findings of the learned munsif. As far as the issue No. 4 was concerned the same was recorded as not pressed and it was noted that there was no averment of default against the defendant in the plaint itself. The defendant, thereafter, preferred the above Title Appeal challenging the propriety of the findings of the learned munsif. The learned additional district Judge in his judgment and decree found that there was no averment in the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and that she was not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation and upon such findings sent the case back on remand with liberty to the plaintiff to file application for amendment of the plaint and on such amendment being allowed with liberty to defendant to file additional written statement. The trial court was directed to allow both the parties to adduce further evidence and to decide the case upon the evidence already on record and also upon such further evidence. While so remanding the case, the learned additional District Judge, however, affirmed the findings on the issue nos. 3 and 4 as mentioned hereinabove on the ground that the said two issues were not challenged before him. 4. IN the appeal before this Court, although, from the Memorandum of Appeal, it appears that entire order of remand has been challenged on merit, Mr. Bagchi, appearing in support of the appeal, has confined his submissions, to the propriety of the findings of the lower appellate court regarding issue no. 3 and has strongly contended that the; tenant/ appellant ought to have been given opportunity to agitate against the propriety and legality of the issue no. 3. Mr. Bagchi has tried to suport his submissions by reference to the grounds of appeal in title Appeal No. 897 of 1983, where from, according to him, it was clear that the tenant/defendant did not accept the propriety of the findings of the trial court regarding the said issue but challenged the same before the lower appellate court and as such there could be no question of abandoning the said issue or not challenging the findings of the trial court thereon. According to Mr. Bagchi, the occasion for pressing the said issue before the lower appellate court did not arise as the suit was found by it to be not maintainable, in the absence of the necessary pleadings. According to Mr. Bagchi, the occasion for pressing the said issue before the lower appellate court did not arise as the suit was found by it to be not maintainable, in the absence of the necessary pleadings. The said issue having been based on questions of law, the same ought to be allowed to be canvassed when the suit would be heard on remand. Mr. Sudhis Dasgupta, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent, has, however, strongly contended that in view of the specific findings of the lower appellate court on issue nos. 3 and 4 as mentioned above, the only remedy which the appellant could claim lay in filing an application for review with proper -factual materials before the lower appellate court for recalling of its findings regarding such issue. According to Mr. Dasgupta no relief can be provided to the appellant in the present appeal by this Court as this Court is not in a position to test the correctness of the findings as to the disputed issues having not been challenged and given up before the lower appellate court. 5. A number of decisions have bean cited at the bar by the learned counsel in support of their respective contentions. 6. THE point, which has to be dealt with, lunges on issue no. 3, which has already been quoted in the foregoing portion of this judgment. Upon consideration of the respective submissions and the materials on record, i am of the view that the submissions of Mr. Bagchi cannot be accepted. No doubt there is a distinction between omission to argue a point of law and express abandonment of a point of law in the former case the superior court is always empowered to entertain such a point for its consideration but the position is not the same where point involved, though a point of law, has been expressly abandoned and recorded to have been so abandoned by the subordinate court. In the second case, the superior court does not allow such abandoned point to be canvassed before it;. In the second case, the superior court does not allow such abandoned point to be canvassed before it;. Reference, in this connection, may be made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Chakrabarti C. J. and Lahiri J. in the case of Prem Chand Manick chand v. Fort Gloster Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd., reported in 64 CWN 103, where the learned Chief Justice made the following observations : - " So far as the first ground is concerned I do not think that it is open to the appellant to urge it in appeal. It is quite true that a ground of law, particularly one which goes to the legal validity of the entire proceedings, can be taken for the first time at any stage, but, in my view, when a party has raised such a ground and then deliberately abandoned it, he cannot be allowed to raise it again before the Court of Appeal. " 7. THE case of Kishun Prosad Pandey and Ors. v. Durga Prosad thakur and Ors., reported in 35 CWN 1217 relied on by Mr. Bagchi, is distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case issue no. 3 raise a question of law and fact and not a pure question of law. The present case therefore, so far as the plaintiff respondent-concerned, stands on a better footing. There is also express recording of the fact. that the findings of the trial court had not been challenged in the Court of Appeal below. It arrears from the order sheet of the lower appellate court that the entire appeal was heard by it on 27. 3. 83 and not the question of maintainability alone as urged, by Mr. Bagchi. No. Specific ground to that effect as been taken also in the Memorandum;)" of Appeal filed before this Court. Mere raising of a ground in the metric of appeal as tiled before the Court below cannot nullify the effect of such an express finding (Vide Gauri Shankar v. M/s. Hindustan Trust (Pvt)Ltd. and Ors., reported in (1973)2 SCC 127 . Mr. Bagchi's contention, therefore, that there is no occasion arose for pressing the disputed issue is not sustainable. In the case of Sarat Chandra Maity and Ors. Mr. Bagchi's contention, therefore, that there is no occasion arose for pressing the disputed issue is not sustainable. In the case of Sarat Chandra Maity and Ors. v. Bibhabati Devi and Ors., reported in 34 CLJ 302, Sir Asutosh Mookherjee, delivering the judgment, while dealing with an admission recorded by the trial court, laid down that the most convenient and satisfactory course to follow, wherever practicable, is to apply to the Judge without delay and ask for rectification or review of the judgment a course, which has not been followed in the instant case. 8. IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs assessed at 5 gms. Since the suit is one of 1980 and since in view of the impugned order of remand. it may take come more time to be disposed of by the trial court, it is desirable that the suit, which is one on the ground of reasonable requirement, should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Let the records be sent down to the court below forthwith. Appeal dismissed.