IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 604 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 604 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 604 OF 2007 Shri Khandu Pandharinath Pawar & Ors. .. Appellants (Orig. Defendants) Versus Sou Lata Vilas Jadhav .. Respondent (Orig. Plaintiff) Mr. M.S.Karnik, Advocate, for the appellants. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 3rd June, 2008. DATE: 3rd June, 2008. DATE: 3rd June, 2008. P.C. C. C. 1. Heard Mr. Karnik, learned Counsel for the appellants/original defendants. 2. The plaintiff/respondent had filed the suit for partition, but it appears that one Tarabai, who was found to be the necessary party, was not impleaded. The trial Court dismissed the suit for non-joinder of the necessary party. In Regular Civil Appeal No.23 of 2001 preferred by the original plaintiff, the appellate Court allowed the Appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead Tarabai as necessary party and then to give opportunity to both parties to lead their further oral and documentary evidence. The appellate Court also directed the trial Court to decide the matter afresh expeditiously. The defendants have preferred the present Appeal against the order of the appellate Court remanding the matter 3. The appellate Court noted that the trial Court had come to conclusion that the plaintiff had share, the relationship between the parties is admitted and the suit property is the ancestral property. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that in order to advance complete justice, an opportunity to implead Tarabai ought to have been given to the plaintiff. 4. Taking into consideration the circumstances noted by the appellate Court while setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanding the matter back, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 5. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)