1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 371 of 2005 Salim Bee Sk. Ishaq Latif Vs. Shyamsundar Agrawal & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri N. R. Borkar Adv. for appellant. Shri V. R. Mundra Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 5 th February, 2008. Heard. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by Additional District Judge Gondia. He dismissed the entire appeal as not maintainable after the appeal 2 was withdrawn by appellant No.1. There were 4 other appellants along with appellant No.1. The appeal as a whole was dismissed after withdrawal by the appellant No.1 on the ground that there was no decree as against the rest of the appellants. Being aggrieved by this, the second appeal is preferred. After having gone through the decree passed by the trial Court, it is clear that claim for specific performance was rejected by the trial Court and the trial Court had held that the correction deeds dated 19.03.90, 20.03.90 and 22.03.90 executed by the defendant No.7 in favour of defendants 5, 8 and 9 were null and void. Decree 3 for mandatory injunction was also granted against defendant No.10. Final order of the trial Court itself shows that trial Court has not granted any relief whatsoever against the defendants 2, 4 and 6. There is neither a decree for specific performance nor the sale deed in their favour is declared as void nor is there an injunction against them. Neither of these reliefs had been granted against defendants 2, 4 and 6. Shri Borkar learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is however a finding on issue No. 8 that plaintiff was entitled to possession. That finding is very much there but then the decree 4 shows that there is no decree for possession at all as against any of the defendants barring defendant No.10. Thus if that finding is to be read along with final order it has to be said that that finding relates to defendant No.10 and does not relate to any of the defendants. Had the Court intended to give relief of possession to the plaintiff as against other defendants, it would have passed decree against them also. Therefore, that finding operates only against defendant No. 10. Further a party is not entitled to prefer any appeal against a finding where a decree is not passed against him. There is no decree against defendants 2, 4 and 5 6, therefore, the learned Judge of the lower Court was right in dismissing the appeal as a whole when it was withdrawn by defendant No.1. I see no substantial questions of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk