-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 386 OF 2005 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 386 OF 2005 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 386 OF 2005 Arjun Appa Chavan.......... ... Appellant. Versus Dattu Govind Chavan.......... ... Respondent. Mr. Dilip Tain i/by Ms. Varsha Palav for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The appeal is by the original plaintiff. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional District Judge has set aide the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant and suit has been remanded to the trial Court for re-trial. Parties were directed to appear in the trial Court on 21st March, 2002. Parties were permitted to lead -: 2 :- further evidence. There was no ad-interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of this appeal by which the impugned judgment and order was stayed. 3. The order of remand has been passed, inter alia, on the ground that respondent / defendant was not given proper opportunity to lead evidence. The appellate Court has referred to applications for adjournment made by the respondent on various grounds. Learned Additional District Judge held that considering the grounds made out in the said application, opportunity deserves to be granted to the respondent / defendant to lead evidence. Hence, order of remand has been passed on 22nd February, 2002. 4. No case is made out for interference. Appeal from Order is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. All parties concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Sd/- (A. S. OKA, J. A. S. OKA, J. A. S. OKA, J.)