1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 9086 of 2007 Laxman Rambhau Wagdare .. Petitioners versus Dattatraya Rambhau Wagdare & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.S.R. Ganbavale for the petitioner. Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir for the respondents. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 14th July 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Tapkir waives notice for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 though duly served have not chosen to appear. In ay case, it is agreed they are formal parties as the real contest is between the petitioner and respondent no.1. Accordingly, by consent of counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 petition is taken up for final disposal 2 forthwith as short question is involved. 3. This petition take exception to the judgement and order passed by the Principal District Judge, Pune dated 17th April 2007 in Misc.Civil Appeal no.50 of 2006 which order inturn quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court below Exhibit-5 in regular civil suit no.109 of 2005 dated 16th January 2006. For the nature of order that I propose to pass and as it is agreed between the parties, I am not recording detail reasons as that may affect the merits of the contentions either way. Suffice it to observe that the appellate court has not taken into account crucial circumstances adverted to by the trial court for issuing restraint order against defendant no.2 respondent no.1 herein. Indeed, the appellate court in paragraph no.8 has referred to the position emerging from the certified copy of the registered sale deed in respect of Gut no.450. However, that can be no basis to resolve the controversy between the parties in relation to the suit property which is Gut No.416 and 420. The basis on which the controversy has been answered by the Appellate Court in paragraph no.9 of the impugned judgement, prima facie, seems to be inappropriate. As aforesaid, without elaborating the reasons for setting aside the impugned judgement as is agreed 3 between the parties, the impugned judgement and order is set aside. Instead, the appeal is restored to the file of the appellate court to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law afresh. All questions in the appeal are left open to be answered on its own merits. Till the appeal is disposed of, parties shall maintain status quo as of today. Parties shall appear before the appellate court on 4th August 2008 on which date the appellate court shall proceed with the hearing of the appeal or place the matter on some suitable date so as to ensure that the appeal is finally disposed of not later than 30th September 2008. 4. I am informed that the respondent no.1 has filed appeal before the appellate court being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no.381 of 2007 which is stated to be pending for hearing-as it is between the same parties relating to the same suit property and arising out of the same suit, it is appropriate that both the appeals are taken up together for hearing and considered on its own merits. 5. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. 4 (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)