IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 581 OF 2008 SMT. ASHA BICO NAIK AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI RAJENDRA BABONIM NAIK OR RAJENDRA NAIK AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Coelho Pereira, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2 Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 30th March, 2009 P.C. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 2. This petition has been filed against the order passed by the Adhoc District Judge -1, Fast Track Court, South Goa, Margao. The appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in RCS no. 3/2005. When the appeal came up for hearing before the learned District Judge, the defendants/appellants moved an application for deletion of two issues namely the issue as to whether the suit is within limitation and the second the issue was with regard to adverse possession. The learned District Judge who heard the application exbt. D-25 dismissed the application and being aggrieved by that this Writ Petition has been preferred. 3. In the first place, it must be mentioned that an application in appeal for deletion of issue in the suit which was already decided was misconceived. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner therefore wants to withdraw the said application. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw exbt. D-25. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be allowed to urge before the Appellate Court as to whether these two issues of limitation and adverse possession arise before the Appellate Court or not. The appellant would always be at liberty to urge before the Court as to which points arise for consideration. There would therefore be no difficulty for appellant to advance those arguments before the appellate court. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the application is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to hear the parties on merits and then decide the question as to whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession and the Appellate Court may decide these points on merits. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. *am/-