1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR A.O. 31/2010 Madan s/o Krishnaji Undraskar Vs. Ganesh Narayanrao Wankhede and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M.P. Lingayat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.P.Khajanchi, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 10th JUNE 2010. 1] Heard. The remand of Regular Civil Suit No.72/2000 by entertaining Regular Civil Appeal No. 97/2004 by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1 Pandharkawada (Kelapur) is questioned by the defendant in terms of order 43 Rule 1 (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2] The learned counsel for the defendant(appellant) submits that there was no necessity to remand the matter as the Court Commissioner PW 3 Sakaharam Kinnake has carried out the measurement and it was the joint measurement of two plots, and did not demand or scope for further dissection of the matter. According to learned counsel, the exercise of remand has betrayed the relief 2 granted in favour of the defendant/appellant. 3] The learned First Appellate Court minutely dealt with the evidence of PW 3 Sakharam Kinnake. Identical exercise as was sought to be carried by this Court at the instance of learned counsel for the defendant/appellant was entertained. I have read the evidence of PW 3 Sakharam Kinnake and I have no hesitation to accept the view expressed by the learned Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment. The Cadestral Surveyor PW 3 Sakharam Kinnake did not adhere to the required precautions to be carried out at the time of measurement, which has created mess and a situation of may-hem. The First Appellate Court correct the same. 4] The appeal reveals challenge in terms under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Narayan Vs. Kumaran and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 26, the scope is to be tested in tune with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 3 consequently it should be confined to the question of fact of having the order of remand, the Court need not to go into exact details of fact and appreciate in evidence. The exercise carried out by the First Appellate Court does not demonstrate that there was any error on the part of the learned first Appellate Court. No substantial question of law has been raised in the present A.O. to invoke jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, A.O. lacks of merit. It is dismissed. No costs. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.