1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.113/2009 (BALAPRASAD BHIKULAL DARAK AND OTHERS V/S MUKUND TATYA SHIRSAGAR AND OTHERS) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. A.G.Dalal, Adv., h/f Mr. V.D.Salunke, Adv., for the appellant. Smt. M.A.Kulkarni, Adv., for respondent no.1/1 to 1/5. Respondent nos. 1/6 to 1/9 served. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:28/1/2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard Counsel extensively. 2. The grievance is, the learned appellate Court - Ad hoc District Judge-II, Ambejogai, by reversing the judgment and order of the learned lower Court, has caused an error by recording findings to the points for determination and then remitting the matter to the learned lower Court to decide the same with certain directions. 2 3. It is a matter of record, the present appellants are the subsequent purchasers and were not party in the original proceedings. Mr.Dalal, Counsel, during the course of his address informed, there was no pleading of the present appellants before the learned trial Court, present appellants are subsequent purchasers during pendency of the appeal. 4. Taking these aspects into consideration, without adverting to the inter se rival contentions, the fact remains, the order of the learned Ad Hoc District Judge, directing remand of the matter with recording finding though is criticized, however, in the situation, he had no option other than dealing with the evidence and merits. 5. Inspite of observation of learned Ad hoc District Judge, Ambejogai, the learned trial Judge shall not be influenced by the said observations. 3 6. I do not see any error on the part of the learned Ad Hoc District Judge in remanding the matter for trial afresh and, particularly, when the appellants pleaded that they are required to be heard, claiming bona fide purchaser of the property. To the extent, as indicated above, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/113-09ao