**1** IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.6213/2008 Bhaskar Doulat Hire and others. ....Petitioners -VERSUS- Vasantrao Laxmanrao Magar and others. ....Respondents ........... Mr.M.M.Sathaye, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Sandeep K. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. ........... CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. Dated 14th October, 2009. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 Considering the limited controversy involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3 The Petitioners are the original Defendants Nos.1 to 5 and the first Respondent is the original Plaintiff. The first Respondent filed a suit against the Petitioners and the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 for injunction restraining the Defendants Nos.1 to 5 from creating any third party interest. A prayer for declaration was made that the documents executed by the Petitioners (Defendants Nos.1 to 5) in favour of the first Respondent were legal and proper. An application at Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction was made by the first Respondent. The Trial Court rejected the said application by order dated 09.03.2006. An appeal was preferred by the first Respondent against the said order. The learned District Judge by the judgment and order dated 11.03.2008 allowed the appeal and remanded the application at Exhibit-5 for fresh consideration of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court referred to the order dated 20.04.2006 passed by the Trial Court below an application at Exhibit-106 and also the order passed by the Trial Court on the same day **2** below an application Exhibit-104. The learned District Judge was of the view that the order passed below Exhibit-5 was contrary to the aforesaid two orders, and therefore, the order of remand was passed. 4 After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, I find that there was absolutely no justification for passing an order of remand. If according to the learned District Judge, if any other order was passed by the Trial Court was contrary to the order impugned before him, nothing prevented the learned District Judge from deciding the appeal on merits. There was absolutely no warrant for passing the order of remand and the learned District Judge ought to have decided the appeal on merits. 5 Hence, I pass the following order:- (1) Impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.2008 is quashed and set aside. Civil Misc. Appeal No.43/2006 is restored to file of the District Court. (2) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Nashik on 23.11.2009 (Monday) at 11:00 am. (3) The learned Principal District Judge may himself take up the appeal for final disposal or may assign the same to other Court as per his administrative convenience. (4) The appeal shall be finally decided as expeditiously as possible and in any event by the end of February, 2010. (5) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (6) Writ Petition is partly allowed in the above terms. [A.S. OKA, J.] kps