1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.10 OF 2007. 1. Mr. Arnold Braganza, major, married, r/o. Dattawdi, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. 2. Mr. Francisco Fernandes and his wife 3. Mrs. Sabina Fernandes, both r/o Feira Alto, Cunha Gomes Bldg., Mapusa, Bardez,Goa. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 Through Power of Attorney Mr. Bonifacio Dias. ... Appellants/Org.Defendants. Versus Smt. Kamlabai Pandurang Chanekar, major of age, widow, housewife, r/o Angod Vaddo, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. .. Respondents/Org.Plaintiff. Mr. J. E. Coelho Perreira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Korgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.J.A.Lobo,Advocate Under Legal Aid Scheme CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN,J. DATE : 20 th August, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants original defendants have filed this appeal taking exception to the following order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, remanding the suit for a decision on additional issue. " Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit is set aside. File remanded to the trial Court to frame additional issue on the point of locus standi and then to decide the suit afresh after allowing opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence on the said issue. For that purpose, parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 5.3.2002 at 10.30 hr." The appellants initially filed a second appeal. They were allowed to have it converted into appeal against order by order of this Court dated 24.2.2006. 2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Perriera for the appellants and learned Advocate Shri Lobo for the respondent (appointed under legal aid scheme). The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Judge has remanded the matter to the trial Court, since material facts had been left out while relying documentary and oral evidence. Therefore, according to him irrespective of what the operative order states, remand is for reconsideration of the material evidence, which 3 had been left out by the trial Judge. This contention has to be rejected because the operative order, whereby the learned Additional District Judge remanded the matter, is very clear. She has stated while remanding the matter to trial Court to frame additional issue on the point of locus standie of the plaintiffs and then, to decide the suit afresh after allowing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the said issue ( not on all issues generally) and “for that purpose " the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Additional District Judge remanded the matter only on the question of plaintiff's locus standie to file the suit. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, even if the plaintiffs have locus standie to file the suit, the suit is dismissed by the trial Court on merits. Therefore, even if upon remand, the plaintiffs are held to have locus standie, it does not alter the fate of the parties. Therefore, the impugned order would unnecessarily throw the parties in another unwarranted round of litigation. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. Costs in cause. R. C. CHAVAN, J. SMA 4