1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2414 OF 2007 (Rajabhau Khushalrao Langote .v. Hyamadkha Ahmadkha) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 23RD APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant in Regular Civil suit No. 88/2006 filed for permanent injunction. The petitioner also filed an application at Exh.5 for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court by order dated 03.03.2007, granted injunction in favour of the petitioner and the respondent was restrained from obstructing or to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land without due process of law, personally or through their relatives, servants, agents or any person claiming through him till disposal of the suit. The respondent being aggrieved, approached the learned District Judge by preferring Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.14/2007 and the learned District Judge-I, 2 Achalpur by the impugned order in the petition, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. Consequently the order passed below Exh.5 came to be set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for decision on Exh.5 afresh in the light of the observations made in the order passed by the learned appellate Court. The lower appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has failed to consider the document filed before it in proper perspective. In addition to this, the several documents were also filed in the lower appellate Court. In view of the fact that the fresh documents are filed in the lower appellate Court which goes to the roots of the matter, the lower appellate Court felt it necessary to remand back the matter to the trial Court. I do not find any error or perversity in the approach adopted by the lower appellate Court. There is no reason to interfere as no ground is made out in my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE *rrg.