1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.68 OF 2010 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.69 OF 2010 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.69 OF 2010 Santosh Purshottam Dhawad .... Appellant Vs. Dnyandev Maruti More & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel with T.D. Deshmukh for the Appellant. Shri Nitin Muley for Respondent No.1. Shri P.S. Dani for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 06, 2010 P.C: 1. Both these appeals are directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Solapur, whereby he remanded Special Civil Suit No.43 of 2001 for being heard by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, afresh. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned District Judge should not have remanded the matter since the defendant s counsel had passed no instruction pursis. The 2 appellant may be correct but the appellant has to blame himself for the situation in which he finds himself because after the no instruction pursis was passed and the plaintiff had closed his evidence and the matter was posted for argument on 30-8-2004, the plaintiff filed an application for production of documents which was allowed. Thus, the case was virtually reopened by the learned trial Judge. If the learned trial Judge had reopened the case and permitted the plaintiff to tender evidence, it was necessary for him to fix the case for hearing the defendant before closing it for argument. Question as to whether defendant would or would not appear is speculative and the learned Judge need not have precluded the decision on that question. He should have kept the case for evidence of the defendant and waited and watched as to whether the defendant appears or not and then proceeded with the further trial. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 2. Since the matter is nine years old, the learned Judge would, undoubtedly, expeditiously dispose of the suit after hearing the parties to the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant states that in view of the 3 decree which had been passed by the learned Civil Judge, a registered sale deed has been executed. Needless to say, all actions taken pursuant to the decree which has been set aside by the learned District Judge could be subject to such decree as may eventually be passed after the trial of the suit. 3. The appeals are disposed of. 4. In view of disposal of the appeals, Civil Application No.113 of 2010 in Appeal From Order No.69 of 2010 also stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)