1 W.P.10534.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10534 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12078 OF 2011 Dr.Chimandas S/o Assanand Gursahani. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner Plot No.2, “Vhavishya Nidhi Bhawan” Town Centre, Commercial Area, CIDCO, New Aurangabad and another ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.D.K.Kulkarni,Advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari,Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. From perusal of Exhibit ”A”, the order passed by the Appellate Authority, in title clause no 2 W.P.10534.10 name of “Murgeshwar Farm” is mentioned. Even at Page No.44 Exhibit “J” of the compilation of the Writ Petition i.e. Appeal memo, name of the “Murgeshwar Farm” is not mentioned. It is difficult to understand and digest that, the Appellant Authority has considered the said appeal on behalf of the “Murgeshwar Farm” without having name of “Murgeshwar Farm” mentioned in the title clause of the Appeal Memo and also in the impugned order, which is assailed in this matter. In that view of the matter, it would in the interest of parties to remand the matter back to the Appellate Forum. 3. In the aforesaid back ground, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the present Writ Petition, to present the appropriate proceeding before appropriate appellate authority i.e. Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal by mentioning the name of “Murgeshwar Farm”. However, though the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is 3 W.P.10534.10 accepted, the impugned order is required to be set aside for the reasons that the Appellate Authority proceeded to decide the appeal on the ground that the said appeal is presented by Dr. Chmandas Assanand Gursahani on behalf of “Murgeshwar Farm”. In the result, impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is given liberty to present the Appeal afresh by mentioning the name of the “Murgeshwar Farm” in the title clause of the Appeal. 4. It is needless to clarify that since the petitioner was prosecuting this Writ Petition and since impugned order of the Tribunal has been set aside, the point of limitation would not come in the way of the petitioner. Such technical objection should not be raised before the Appellate Forum. The Appeal which would be filed by the petitioner should be entertained on its own merits. The petition is allowed to above extent and same stands disposed off. 4 W.P.10534.10 5. In view of the disposal of Writ Petition nothing further survives for consideration in the Civil Application and same stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK