1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2009 Ravindra Vithoba Jathar ........Appellant versus Devayani Dattatray Joshi & ors........Respondents. Mr. S.B. Shetye adv. for the Appellant. Mr. A.S. Rao adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 30th August, 2010. P.C.: 1. The appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Joint C.J.J.D. Ratnagiri dated 28­8­2006 thereby decreeing the suit and the order passed by the learned District Judge­1. Ratnagiri, in Civil Appeal no. 78/06 thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. 2. The appeal basically is on the ground that though earlier the issues were framed on 7­11­2005 and the parties had led their evidence on the said issues, subsequently on 23­8­2006 only one issue was framed regarding the validity of the notice dated 2­3­2005 and without giving any opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the said issue, decree came to be passed on 28­8­2006. 3. I find that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge 2 was totally erroneous. Having re­framed the issue it was necessary for the learned Judge of the trial court to have given an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the said issue. Though the arguments were advanced on this issue before the learned Appellant Court, the learned Appellate Court was not even referred to the said issue. However, be that as it may, the respondents have themselves agreed that the order is not sustainable in law. In that view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the trial judge and the appellant judge are quashed and set aside. The suit is remitted back to the learned trial Judge for proceeding afresh from the stage of framing the re­casted issue. Needless to state that the parties would be at liberty to lead their evidence on the re­casted issue. 4. Since during the pendency of the present appeal by an interim order the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1000/­ per month towards rent, the same arrangement shall continue during the pendency of the suit. 5. Taking into consideration that the suit is of the year 2005 and is between the landlord and the tenant, the hearing of the suit is expedited. The learned trial judge is directed to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of this order. The R & P. if received be remitted forthwith to the learned trial court. (B. R. GAVAI, J.) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1313 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2009 Devayani Dattatray Joshi & ors ........Appellant versus Ravindra Vithoba Jathar........Respondents. Mr. A.S. Rao adv. for the Applicant. Mr. S.B. Shetye adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 30th August, 2010. P.C.: 1. This is an application for withdrawal of the amount deposited in the trial court. The application is allowed and the applicant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in the trial court. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)