( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4983 OF 1996 Bhaskar s/o. Keshav Kulkarni .. Petitioners Since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives namely:- 1A) Smt. Sumanbai Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age. 64 years, R/o. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Gune Galli, Near Dilip Gas Agency, Chalisgaon. 1B) Arun @ Arjun Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age. 44 years, R/o. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. As above. Versus 1. Madhav Malji Mistri .. Respondents Since deceased, through his legal heirs, namely, 1A) Smt. Shalinibai Madhav Sonwane, Age. 87 years, 1B) Suresh Madhavrao Sonwane, died per LRs. 1B (i) Smt. Minaxi Suresh Sonwane, Age. 50 years, R/o. Gune Galli, Near Deepak Gas Agency, Chalisgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 1B (ii) Bhushan s/o. Suresh Sonwane, Age. 27 years, R/o. As above. ( 2 ) 1B (iii) Ravindra s/o. Suresh Sonwane Age. 25 years, R/o. As above. 1B (iv) Sou. Suvarna Sanjay Khele, Age. 36 years, R/o. Amrutnagar Colony, Sangamner, Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. 1B (v) Sou. Aparna Mangesh Gulunjkar, Age. 33 years, R/o. Guruwar Peth, At post – Pune, Pune. 1B (vi) Sou. Bhavana Ajay Khele, Age. 30 years, R/o. Bhingar Galli, Ahmednagar. 1B (vii) Ku. Savita d/o. Suresh Sonwane, Age. 22 years, R/o. Gune Galli, Near Deepak Gas Agency, Chalisgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 1C) Saw. Pratim Madhav Fegade Age. 56 years, 1D) Saw. Anuradha w/o. Kashinath Shirode, Age. 54 years. 1E) Saw. Chhaya Ramesh Age. 52 years. 1F) Saw. Lata Rajaram Chiklikar, Age. 49 years, 1G) Subhash Madhavrao Sonwane, Age. 41 years, Occ. Business. 2. Anil Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age. 47 years. 3. Miss. Nanda d/o. Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age. 34 years, ( 3 ) 4. Miss Vidya d/o. Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age. 31 years, 5. Miss Asha d/o. Bhaskar Kulkarni, Age. 37 years, Ghat Road, Chalisgaon. All R/o. Chalisgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. Shri V.J. Dixit, Sr. Counsel for the petitioners. Smt. M.L. Sangit h/f. Shri L.V. Sangit, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.09.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. By this writ petition the original tenants challenge the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 208 of 1982, decided on 08.12.1992, thereby confirming the decree of eviction and payment of rent, which is further confirmed by the III Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, while hearing Review Application No. 3 of 1993, decided on 03.07.1995. 2. The present petitioners are original tenants and one Madhav Malji Mistri was the original landlord. The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.266 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chalisgaon, on the ground of ( 4 ) default in payment of rent. It is stated that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1976 to 30th June, 1977 and tenancy was terminated by notice dated 13th July, 1977. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit. Civil Appeal No. 208 of 1982 came to be filed. Same was decided by the II Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, on 07.04.1992. Same was challenged in writ petition No. 1983 of 1992 and this Court by order dated 18.09.1992 pleased to remand the matter for disposal according to law. The relevant portion of the order is as follows :- “5. In view of the submission of Shri Patil, learned counsel for the respondents, there is no reason why the petition should not be allowed to that extent. The impugned judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court dated 07.04.1992 is quashed and set aside and the Regular Civil Appeal No. 208 of 1982 is restored to file, and the same is remanded to the lower Appellate Court for disposal according to law in the light of above said observations.” 3. It is case of present petitioners that after remand the learned II Additional District Judge Shri K.S. Daralwar decided the matter by order dated 08.12.1992, but he did not issue any notice to the parties nor heard advocates for the parties. He simply perused the papers and decided the matter ( 5 ) without hearing the parties. Therefore, Review Application No. 3 of 1993 was filed. It was heard by another Judge, presumably because earlier judge was transferred and new Judge who was III Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, also felt that it was not necessary for the District Court to issue notice to the parties and hear the advocates for the parties and then decide the matter. The learned Judge observed in para 6 as under :- “6......... Appeal was remanded as there was legal flaw noticed by His Lordship for want of point for determination. On facts it was not remanded back. Therefore, as there was already hearing of appeal initially there was no necessary to rehear the parties again and it appears that as per the directions given in the judgment of Writ Petition appeal came to be decided. A grievance has been made that appellants have not been heard. I fail to understand what difference it makes for the appellants particularly when there was nothing new to be argued. On both the occasions appeal came to be decided by the same Judge who heard the appeal at the first instance on merits. It is not the case where appeal was re-decided by another Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that it had resulted in to miscarriage of justice to the appellants. No error much less patent error is apparent on the face of record. 4. It is unfortunate that the order of this Court remanding the matter and directing its decision according to ( 6 ) law is not properly interpreted. This Court is left with no alternative than to again remand the matter for second time, so that the concerned first appellate judge will issue notices to the parties, hear their advocates and shall then decide the matter. 5. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 208 of 1982 decided on 08.12.1992 is hereby set aside. The District Court, Jalgaon, is directed to restore the said Civil Appeal No. 208 of 1982 on its file. The District Court shall issue notices to the parties to the appeal and then decide the same afresh according to law, as expeditiously as possible. Until parties appear in the District Court, interim order of status-quo to continue. 6. Rule made absolute and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/wp4983.96