SM 1 42.ao.840.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 840 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1108 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 840 OF 2011 Shri. Madhukar Balkrishna Mahamuni ....Appellant. Versus Sadashiv Mahadeo Mahamuni Since Deceased through his heirs and legal representatives and others ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. Pritesh Bohade i/b Dilip Bodke for the Appellant. Mr. G. R. Agarwal for the Respondent Nos. 1-A to 1-C and 2. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 12, 2011. P.C.: A decree was passed by the First Appellate Court remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for re-trial and said order passed by the First Appellate Court is subject matter of challenge in this appeal from order. An exparte decree came to be passed against the defendants by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 399 of 1993 dated 18th August, 1997. The appeal was preferred by the appellant raising exception to the exparte decree. After hearing rival contentions, the First Appellate Court remitted the matter back to the Trial Court. It was contended before the First Appellate Court by the appellants that the original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were dead, even though the suit was proceeded against them. Hence the decree passed against them is null and void. It is also contended that in this appeal, also parties are the same and SM 2 42.ao.840.11 no steps were taken to bring legal representatives of deceased defendants/respondents on record. As a result thereof, the decree is vitiated. The First Appellate Court has also recorded the finding in the judgment that some of the defendants were dead and still decree was passed against them. A decree passed by the Trial Court is in respect of the specific performance agreement. The contention is raised by the appellant that decree passed against the dead person is nullity. The First Appellate Court has remitted the matter back with a purpose to extend to the parties an opportunity to take appropriate steps. 2. Considering the facts of this case, no interference is called for in the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad. Appeal from order is devoid of substance and stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. (R. M. BORDE, J.)