1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3924 OF 2009 Mrs.Mridula Vinay Rathi & anr. ... Petitioners v/s Mr.Ramgopal Gupta (since deceased) & ors. ... Respondents Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the petitioners. Mr.Bharat Mehta for the respondent No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 22ND JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court of the Small Causes Court by which a direction has been given to the Trial Court to treat the reply of the respondent No.2 i.e. the decree holder, as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and miscellaneous notice as reply to the said proceeding. By the same order, the appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the Trial Court on 15.7.2002 in Misc. 2 Notice Nos.48 of 2002 and 49 of 2009 and has remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing. By these miscellaneous notices, the petitioners had contended that they are not bound by the decree passed against the respondent No.3 and that they were in possession of the suit property. 2. The respondent No.2 has not challenged the order of the appellate Court remanding the matter to the Trial Court. 3. In my opinion, once there is an order of remand, the appellate Court could not have directed the trial Court to treat the reply of the respondent No.2 as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the miscellaneous notices filed by the petitioners as their reply. 4. The respondent No.2, would no doubt have the right to contend in appropriate proceedings that the petitioners have no right to continue in the premises in view of the decree having been passed against the respondent No.3 wherein they were recognized as being in possession. The respondent No.3 has failed right upto the Supreme Court 3 and, therefore, the respondent No.2 has put the decree in execution which is now being obstructed by the petitioners. 5. In my opinion, the appellate Court’s order giving further directions, after remanding the two notices, cannot be sustained and therefore that part of the order is set aside. It is needless to state that the respondent No.2 can independently take action against the petitioners by following the due process of law. 6. Writ petition rejected. ..... 4