( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.572 OF 2009 Raosaheb Digamber Dhage, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Bajirgaon, Tq. Billoli, District Nanded. .. Appellant Versus Datta Hanumanta Jadhav, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Honwada, Tq. Loha, District Nanded. .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8266 OF 2009 ... Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for sole respondent. ... CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 27.04.2010 P.C. :- This is an appeal filed by the original defendant against the judgment and decree for recovery of Rs.60,000/- passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Loha in ( 2 ) R.C.S. No. 12/2002 decided on 29-04-2005, which judgment and decree is further confirmed in R.C.A. No.25/2005 decided by the Adhoc District Judge-1 Kandhar on 29-04-2009. 2. The case of the present respondent - original plaintiff is that on 31-05-1999 he had given handloan of Rs.60,000/- to the defendant on condition to repay the amount within two months. A bond was executed on stamp paper of Rs.20/-, which is at Exhibit-30. The suit is for recovery of the amount. The defendant - appellant filed filed Written Statement at Exhibit-24 and denied taking of handloan and stated that the document is obtained by fraud, taking undue advantage of illiteracy and credulous nature of the defendant. 3. In the first appeal, the request of the appellant was for remanding the matter and the learned Adhoc District Judge did not find sufficient reason to remand the matter. 4. This matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, with the consent of the parties, as only question of law involved in this appeal is that : Is it in the interest of justice to remand the matter? My answer to ( 3 ) the point is in the Affirmative for the following reasons. 5. In this appeal, the present appellant has produced the sale deed dated 31-05-1999 executed by the present respondent Datta Hanumanta Jadhav in favour of the present appellant Raosaheb Digamber Dhage. 1 Hector 7 Are out of Gat No. 175 situated at Village Donwada was sold for Rs. 60,000/-. The sale deed is registered, signed by the same witnesses who were on agreement at Exhibit-30, on which suit was decreed. The learned Advocate of the appellant gave copy of it to the Advocate of respondent and showed me the original sale deed. 6. It is surprising that a man who was purchasing 1 H 07 Are land for Rs. 60,000/- should borrow Rs. 60,000/- from the seller on the same day. It is difficult to believe that the present respondent who was seller, would sell his land and on the same day would give back the purchase price as loan amount to the purchaser. Unfortunately, the sale deed was not placed before the trial Court and the first appellate Court and these aspects could not be considered by both the Courts, but this aspect needs to be considered after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and explain true ( 4 ) position. So, in the interest of justice, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts are hereby set aside. Suit is remanded back to the trial Court, with liberty to the defendant to file additional Written Statement, if any, and also to produce original sale deed on record and lead evidence regarding the same. At the same time, the plaintiff is at liberty to file counter Written Statement explaining circumstances disclosed about execution of the sale deed and he will also have opportunity to lead further evidence. 7. So, the suit be decided by the trial Court afresh after giving opportunity to both the sides, to amend or file additional pleadings, so also for leading additional evidence. Since all these facts resulted because the present appellant has not produced the sale deed in the trial Court or the first Appellate Court, the present appellant shall pay Rs. 3000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only) as costs of this appeal to the respondent. Costs to be deposited on or before 28-06-2010 in the trial Court. Parties agree to appear in the trial Court on 28-06-2010 on which date, the present appellant - defendant shall file his additional Written Statement. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed ( 5 ) of. 8. In view of the final disposal of the second appeal, Civil Application No.8266 of 2009 does not survive and hence, is disposed of, as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/sa572.10