1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7172 OF 2011 M/s. Rukhana Associates ...Petitioner Versus E-Square Leisure Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.V.P.Sawant a/w. Usha Rahi i/b. M/s. Mayur Narendra & Co. for the Petitioner Mr.Vivek Kantawala for the Respondents CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 29th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. In the Special Civil Suit No.667 of 2004 which was on the file of Civil Jude, Senior Division, Pune, applications below Exhibit 140 and 140A were filed. Those applications have been rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by his Order dated 21.6.2011. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 577 of 2010 on 2.07.2010 passed an order thereby restoring the suit to the file of the learned Civil Judge, 2 Senior Division, Pune and permitted the parties to attend to the matter at the stage of oral arguments. A perusal of the said order would go to show that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, on remand, was required to hear the oral arguments and decide the matter on merits. When the matter was remanded, aforesaid two applications were made for production of particular documents. It appears that in application below Exhibit 140 it was prayed that the document submitted with list, be taken on record. In the application below Exhibit 140 A, it was prayed that plaintiff be permitted to lead additoinal evidence without naming the said witness. Both these applications have been rejected primarily on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court had permitted the petitioners to advance arguments only. On reading the aforesaid order passed by the learned Division Bench, it is clear that the matter was remanded to the trial court for hearing arguments and decision on merits. The order dated 02.07.2010 is crystal clear. Learned Advocate for the petitioners wanted to read the said order to hold that if required, the evidence can be lead. It is not possible for this court to interprete the said order and go ahead. If anything is to be said about the said order and interpretation thereof, it can be done by the learned 3 Division Bench who had passed the said order dated 2.7.2010. 2. With the aforesaid observations in this writ petition, this court has to decide whether the impugned order passed on 22.6.2011 is correctly passed. To that extent, I am inclined to observe that the learned Judge has taken correct view of the order because he was bound by the order dated 2.7.2010. No interference is required . Hence the order. ORDER i. Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)