( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 52 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1504 OF 2009 The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, .. Appellant Latur. Versus Smt. Bismillabee w/o. Mohamad Salar and ors... Respondents Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for the appellant. Shri M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 17.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri V.D. Hon for the appellant and Adv. Shri M.M. Patil (Beedkar) for respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4. This appeal from order is directed against the order of remand passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Latur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007, decided on 04.10.2008; whereby the order passed by III Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 603 of 2001, decided on 13.10.2006, was set aside and the matter was remanded with ( 2 ) direction to the Trial Court to give opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in respect of documents which were produced along with lists Exh.4, Exh. 42 and also Exh. 17 in the appeal. 2. The original suit was filed by the present respondents who alleged that they are owners of land bearing Gat No. 42/2 admeasuring 5 Acres, situated at village Kanheri, which is now part of Latur city. In 1988 village Kanheri was included in the Municipal limits of Latur. On the Western side of Survey No.45 there was cart-way. After the area came under the Municipal Council, they started constructing roads and providing water connections. The father of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had filed Regular Civil Sit No.23 of 1994 for injunction in respect of same property, but that was dismissed. The Court made it clear that until Survey No. 44/2 is measured the disputed portion will not be clear and therefore the respondents got the land measured. After the measurements it was found that there was encroachment by the appellant - Municipal Council to the extent of 20 R and therefore suit is filed for possession of said portion. Present appellant/defendant has stated that Survey No. 44/2 ( 3 ) was converted into N.A. and plots were formed and in the sale-deeds, 40 feet road on the Western side was accepted by the father of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and husband of respondent No.1. Under the circumstances they are not entitled to possession and injunction as prayed. 3. The Trial Court held that the road was in existence since before 1987 and there was no encroachment in the property. Certain documents were produced on record and in view of said production of additional documents, it was found necessary to remand the matter. 4. Heard Adv. Shri V.D. Hon for the appellant and Adv. Shri M.M. Patil (Beedkar) for respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4. After going through the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and after perusal of documents which are sought to be produced in appeal by the respondents, in my opinion, some of those documents appears to have been letters sent by appellant to the respondents. In the interest of justice, it is necessary that Court should allow the parties lead further evidence, if any, on the said issue. After giving anxious thought to detail arguments, the Appeal From ( 4 ) Order is dismissed at the stage of admission. 5. In view of dismissal of this appeal from order, Civil Application No. 1504 of 2009 does not survive and it is disposed of as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ao52.09