( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2009 Bhaskar Nana Pansare .. Appellant Age. 63 years, Occ. Agriculture, [Ori.defendant] R/o. Jakhuri, Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, at present - Sagar Housing Society, Akole-Nasik Road, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus Babu Bhivsen Mhaske .. Respondent Age. 47 years, Occ. Agriculture [Ori.plaintiff] R/o. Jakhuri, Tal – Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 26.06.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Today Civil Application No.420 of 2009 filed in this matter for stay is for hearing. However, it is clear ( 2 ) that this matter was admitted on following substantial questions of law framed by order dated 10.06.2009:- “(i) That the learned Appellate Court has failed to frame the point for determination as required under the law and as such has failed to discharge its duty as of the Appellate Court and this has caused severe prejudice to the Appellant. (ii) That, both the Courts have failed to consider that a document cannot be read in isolation and as such has erroneously interpreted the word used in Exhibit 32 “mortgage” and then “sale-deed” and has erroneously decreed the suit of the respondent.” 2. Considering the nature of substantial questions of law framed, it is desirable that the matter should be heard finally. If both points are answered in favour of the appellant, then the matter will have to be remanded to the District Court. Thus, in order to avoid further delay in disposal of this litigation, this appeal is heard finally at this stage. 3. Heard Adv. Shri A.S. Bajaj for the appellant and Adv. Shri S.K. Shinde for the sole respondent. Both of them have taken me through the judgment of the Adhoc District Judge 1, Sangamner, in Regular Civil Appeal No.150 of 2001, ( 3 ) decided on 16.10.2008. After going through the judgment, in the first place it appears that the points for determination were not properly framed and secondly it appears that actual evidence is not discussed in its entirety. It appears from the judgment that from paragraph Nos. 6 to 31 only submissions by both the advocates are reproduced and then I find conclusion in para 32, which is very brief. Without commenting any more I answer both the points in favour of the appellant and consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the Court of District Judge, Sangamner, for writing judgment as required by law and to decide the matter after giving reasons. 4. In the circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Sangamner in Regular Civil Appeal No.150 of 2001, decided on 16.10.2008 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the said Court for re-hearing. The Court shall take Regular Civil Appeal No.150 of 2001 on its file and the appeal shall be heard afresh and decided according to law. The parties have agreed to appear before the District Court, Sangamner, on 21.07.2009. Before that date, the Registry to send record ( 4 ) and proceedings to the concerned Court. As far as possible said Court shall hear and decide the matter within three months from receipt of the record and proceedings. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. 5. In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 420 of 2009 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa4.09