IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 165 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 243 OF 2007 M/S. DEEPAK BUILDERS & ORS. ..APPELLANTS (ORIG. DEFENDANTS) V/S SMT. PRAMODINI TUKARAM INDULKAR ..RESPONDENT (ORIG. PLAINTIFF) MR. RANJIT A. THORAT, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. V.A. GANGAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present Appellant are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. Admittedly the plaintiff was the owner of certain piece of land and an agreement for development of land had taken place between the plaintiff and defendant no. 3. As per that agreement the defendant no. 3 was to develop the property and in the building to be constructed by them, the plaintiff would be entitled to one flat on the second floor : 2 : admeasuring about 1485 sq. ft. It was also provided in the agreement that if the price of the land was found more than the cost of the said flat, the plaintiff would be entitled to extra flat or the remaining value of the land. The plaintiff filed suit no. 289 of 1993 claiming one extra flat on the ground that the value of the land was much more than the cost of the construction of one flat. She also claimed certain other reliefs. After hearing the parties the trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 469 of 2002. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the trial court had not framed necessary issue in respect of the value of the land which was necessary for the proper decision of the matter. Because of the non-framing of such important issues, the Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the matter back to the trial court with a direction to frame issue on the point of value of the land. That order of remand has been challenged in the present Appeal by the original defendant. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the trial court had not framed necessary issue on the point of value of the land. In fact that was the crux of the matter and without framing such an issue and giving a finding on that, the suit could not : 3 : be properly decided. Learned Appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter back to the trial court and has given opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The Appeal stands dismissed. 4. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil Application does not survive. (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J)