1 SA14.08 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2008 Shri Malleshappa Revappa Kittad & anr. ... Appellants v/s Shri Ramchandra Siddhappa Sabane & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Amit Sale for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Dube i/by Mr.A.K.Jalisatgi for Resp. Nos.1C & 1D. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 16TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the District Judge-2, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.120 of 1998. 2. The suit was filed for a declaration of possession and for a perpetual injunction by the plaintiffs. That suit was partly decreed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Jath. It was held that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit properties bearing Grampanchayat house property Nos.18, 19, City 2 SA14.08 Survey Nos.228 and 235, situated at Jaora-Boblad, Tal. Jath, Dist. Sangli. The order passed by the City Survey authorities recording the name of defendant No.1 as the owner of the property is set aside and the attachment of property pursuant to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 28.9.1964 was also set aside. Simultaneously, the prayer for perpetual injunction and possession from the Receiver was rejected. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, defendant Nos.1 and 2 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.120 of 1998. Cross-objections were also filed by the plaintiffs. 4. The principal contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellants is that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant issues by discussing the evidence in detail. He has therefore submitted that the matter be remanded to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision. 5. I have perused the judgment and order of the Appellate Court and I find that the criticism levelled by the learned advocate on the order of the Appellate Court is justified. The order does not deal with the specific issues raised by the parties which have been dealt with by the Trial Court. Besides, the evidence has not been discussed in detail. 3 SA14.08 6. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Appellate Court to decide all points in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, Regular Civil Appeal No.120 of 1998 is remanded to the District Court, Sangli, for a fresh hearing. The cross-objections at Exh.20 are also remanded. Both, the appeal and the cross-objections will be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31st December, 2012. 8. Accordingly, the order of the District Court is set aside and the matter is remanded. 9. All contentions of the parties are left open. 10. Parties shall approach the District Court on 23.1.2012. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) 4 SA14.08