fa3217.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.3217 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10713 OF 2007 M/s C.T. Parikh Ltd. Shahgunj, Aurangabad through its Director. ... APPELLANT. (Ori. Respondent No.1) VERSUS 1. Sharadchandra s/o Kanayalal Shaha and others. ... RESPONDENTS. (Ori.petitioners & No.7 Ori.R.No.2. ... Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for appellant. Shri D.R. Kulkarni, Advocate for R.Nos.1 to 6. ... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 21st MARCH, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Admit. By consent appeal heard finally forthwith. 2. The present first appeal is directed fa3217.08 2 against the decision of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Aurangabad who has quantified the mesne profits payable to the respondents No.1 to 6 i.e. the plaintiffs by the appellant. The learned Judge has directed that an amount of Rs.66,96,300/- be paid to the respondents No.1 to 6 on or before 20th September, 2006 as mesne profits from 2.8.2000. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant criticizes the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has granted mesne profits as claimed by the plaintiffs though it has observed that it was not convinced with the submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that the annual letting value shown by their Architect, was the actual profit from the property. He submits that the trial Court, after having observed that it was not convinced with the Architect's report, ought not to have granted mesne profits as calculated by the respondents fa3217.08 3 - plaintiffs. 4. In our opinion, the criticism of the learned Advocate for the appellant is justified. The trial Court has observed: "I am not convinced with the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicants to hold the annual letting value shown by the Architect, as actual profits of him from the property." It appears that the appellant failed to cross- examine the witnesses of the respondents and did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. However, we are not able to fathom how the trial Court could have granted the entire amount claimed by the respondents when it was not convinced with the claim of the respondents. 5. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court which is impugned in the present first appeal. fa3217.08 4 6. We remand to the trial Court the M.A.R.J.I. No.460 of 2000 for fresh consideration. The trial Court will permit the appellant to continue with the cross- examination of the witnesses of the respondents and also to lead any evidence in rebuttal. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today. Appeal allowed accordingly. Civil Application stands disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J] ... kadam/*