-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2511 OF 1991 Vasant Vaman Patwardhan .. Petitioner. through power of attorney holder- Shri Narhar Shankar Patwardhan. V/s. Shri Rama Sadu Narkar, since deceased by his legal heirs : 1. Smt. Sitabai Rama Narkar & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. G.B. Karandikar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.M.Kazi for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. --- CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 15th September, 2008. DATED : 15th September, 2008. DATED : 15th September, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.1991 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay in Revision Application No. TEN.A.235 of 1989. The order indicates remand of the proceedings for the following reasons : "....... In my view it was a proper course under the circumstances the learned Tahsildar could have followed. I feel it necessary to get -: 2 :- verified all the facts and circumstances arising out of this matter. A person may not claim valuable tenancy rights for no reason. However, the law requires some proof to establish such rights. All these circumstances are not within the control of the persons claiming tenancy rights. The trial court, therefore, can inspect the suit land by paying visit and making legal enquiry amongst the villagers to ascertain from them as to the fact of possession and cultivation of the suit land. For this reason, I feel that the matter needs to be reinvestigated and therefore, it will have tobe remanded back to the trial court." 2. Reading of the aforesaid reasons would indicate that the remand is made only for the purpose of ascertaining certain factual aspects as to who is in actual possession and cultivation of the suit land. 3. It will not be out of place to mention that during the pendency of the tenancy litigation on more than two occasions the proceedings were remanded by different authorities. The span of the litigation has also completed silver jubilee. Under the circumstances, -: 3 :- it was not necessary for the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to remand matter once again only to collect evidence for the benefit of the respondent. It is not the duty of the court to collect the evidence on behalf of the parties. Both the Advocates submit that whatever evidence was available with them have already been produced by them and the sufficient material is available on record to decide the issues involved in the appeal- petition. In the circumstances, the remand by the authority was un-necessary. Considering the submissions made and looking to the consensus between the parties impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The proceedings are remanded back to the MRT with direction to decide the Tenancy Appeal with expeditious despatch, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. All rival contentions on merits are kept open. Both the parties undertakes to communicate this order to the MRT. 5. R & P be sent back to the MRT immediately. Order accordingly. (V.C. DAGA, J.) -: 4 :- .....