1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.128 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.12966/2010. Rafiq Ahmed s/o Mohd.Osman - APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Mohd.Hisam s/o Mohd. Yusuf Osmani and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.AG Dalal, Adv. h/for Mr.VD Salunke, Advocate for Appellant; Mr.RN Dhorde, Adv. h/for Mr.VR Dhorde,Adv. for Respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 24th November,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard. 2) In Regular Civil Appeal No. 222 of 2006, the learned District Judge-9, Aurangabad by order dated 19.07.2010 remanded the matter and directed the Court of first instance to implead the third party as defendant no.2 and to furnish an opportunity to file Written Statement and then to 2 decide the matter afresh. The directions of remand are questioned by the original plaintiff. 3) The learned District Judge found that the third party realized the difficulties, as based on the decree in RCS No. 1131/2001, , the plaintiff (appellant herein) filed Execution proceedings (Regular Darkhast No.237/2007) before the trial Court. The learned first Appellate Court rightly found the decree was passed without adding all the legal representatives of deceased Yusufali and without recording reasoning as to why such exercise was adhered to by the learned Judge of the court of first instance in decreeing RCS No. 1131/2001. 4) The learned District Judge also found that the direction to approach the Civil Court was given on 20th July, 1998. However, the suit which could have been filed for declaration within three years, could not be done so as it was filed on 18.9.2001. The learned Judge also found that in the plaint, there is no description about payment of Rs.25,000 by father of the plaintiff to father of the defendant except a whisper that before death of father of the plaintiff, he repaid entire amount. 5) The Trial Court did not proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and asked the plaintiff to satisfy on the ground of limitation, still did not consider it. The learned Trial court gave 3 reasoning in one page and held that the plaintiff has filed his own affidavit. These aspects were minutely considered by the learned District Judge-9 at Aurangabad and reversed the decree referred above. 6) On analyzing the entire judgment of the appellate court I do not find any error or illegality on the part of the learned District Judge. No substantial question of law subsists to dissect the said order. Consequently, Appeal from Order lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. All questions between the parties are left open. CA dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/