: 1 : 4854-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4854 OF 2011 Malini Yashwant Samant .. Petitioner v/s. Chandrashekhar Mahadev Khedekar .. Respondent ......... Mrs. Neeta Karnik i/b Janhavi C. Avasank for the petitioner Mr. Sandesh D. Patil for respondent no.1 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The respondent herein had filed R.C. Suit No.629 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Rent Act. The said suit was decreed on 21st March, 2006. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original defendant Malini Y. Samant filed an appeal in the District Court at Thane. Thereafter, she has expired and, therefore, Mrs Prabha Govind Samant is brought on record as her heir and now Mrs. Prabha G. Samant is prosecuting the said application. : 2 : 4854-11-wp=.sxw 2. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner filed Application below Exh.24 for amendment of the plaint on 18th August, 2010. The Application below Exh.10 was also filed for amendment of the written statement some time in 19th December, 2008. The respondent landlord opposed these two applications and the learned District Judge-4, Thane decided these two applications by common judgment and order dated 4th September, 2010. He dismissed these two applications. 3. As the matter was called out, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to submit that the impugned order dated 4th September, 2010 is wrong and that the application should have been granted. In addition to the arguments on merits, she tried to point out that in the entire judgment there is no reference to the pleadings in the applications at Exh. 10 and 24 and that is how the judgment is totally silent about the factual aspects of the matter that the learned District Judge-4 , Thane has dismissed the applications. 4. After having perused the text of the aforesaid judgment, I am inclined to observe that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will : 3 : 4854-11-wp=.sxw be necessary for the learned District Judge-4, Thane to render separate judgments in two applications namely at Exh.10 and Exh.24. In view of this, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 4th September, 2010 below Exh.10 and 24 being common order and direct the learned District Judge-4, Thane to pass separate orders in respect of these two applications. It is conceded by advocate on both sides that arguments advanced were in both these applications and they do not wish to advance any arguments in these two applications. Hence, this petition is disposed by passing following order. ORDER (i) Order dated 4th September, 2010 passed by learned District Judge-4, Thane below Eh.10 and Exh.24 is set aside only on the ground that order does not make reference to various factual aspects and stand taken by the respondent landlord. (ii) The Applications at Exh.10 and Exh.24 are remanded to the District Court, Thane. If the Appeal No.83 of 2006 is presently assigned to learned Judge Mr. P.N. Mundhe, there is no need to advance arguments again and that said learned Judge Mr. P.N. Mundhe shall render separate orders below Exh.10 and Exh.24. : 4 : 4854-11-wp=.sxw (iii) If for some reason, this Civil Appeal No.83 of 2006 is assigned to some other Judge, in that case said Judge will afford a fresh hearing to learned advocates appearing in Civil Appeal No.83 of 2006 in regard to applications at Exh.10 and Exh.24. The hearing shall be separate with reference to the two applications and judgment which will be delivered by the said Judge should also be separated. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any views on the merits of the order dated 4th September, 2010. All questions in that behalf are kept open. There shall be no order as to costs. (iv) Office to send the Writ of this order forthwith. (v) The Judge, who will be assigned to render the judgments in Appeal No. 83 of 2006 should perform his / her job, as per this order, on or before 12th October, 2011. Advocate for the petitioner shall present a copy of this order to the concerned Court, which is attending this Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2006. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)