SHRI GANPATI DEVALAYA PUBLIC TRUST SHRIGONDA THROUGH MANAGERSversusMANGAL BHAUSAHEB GALANDE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:14870
                                                1 of 4                 89-WP.3729.2018




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                89 WRIT PETITION NO. 3729 OF 2018

                 SHRI GANPATI DEVALAYA PUBLIC TRUST SHRIGONDA THROUGH
                                            MANAGERS
                                              VERSUS
                           MANGAL BHAUSAHEB GALANDE AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
                Mr. Amol K. Gawali, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                Mr. Ashwin V. Hon, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                Mr. Prashant N. Khedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                                  ...

                                         CORAM :         SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE    :       27th MARCH 2026
                P.C.:-

                1.        Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

                2.        The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2018

                passed below Exhibit-124 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,

                Shrigonda in R.C.S. No. 236 of 2006, whereby the application filed by

                the Petitioners (Original Plaintiffs) seeking recasting of issues framed

                by the Trial Court after remand came to be rejected.

                3.        Mr. Amol K. Gawali, learned Advocate for the Petitioners

                submits that the suit i.e. R.C.S. No. 236 of 2006 was partly allowed in

                favour of the present Petitioners. Issue No.1 was answered in the

                affirmative by holding that the Plaintiffs had proved their easementary

                right and that the said right was obstructed due to construction carried

                out by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the property described in paragraph

      Tauseef
                                           2 of 4                89-WP.3729.2018




          No.1B. He further submits that Issue No.2 was answered in the

          negative, thereby holding that the Plaintiffs had no locus to file the

          suit.

                    He submits that the said judgment was challenged in appeal

          and the learned Appellate Court remanded the matter. According to

          him, the Appellate Court observed that the findings on Issue No.1

          remained intact and therefore, the same ought not to have been

          reframed. However, after remand, the Trial Court framed all issues

          again. Consequently, the Petitioners filed an application below Exhibit-

          124 seeking recasting of issues already decided in their favour, which

          came to be rejected.

          4.        Learned Advocate for the Petitioners invited attention to

          paragraph No.15 of the Appellate Court’s judgment to contend that the

          finding on Issue No.1 was not disturbed. He submits that once such

          finding had attained finality, the Trial Court ought not to have framed

          that issue again and therefore, the application below Exhibit-124 ought

          to have been allowed.

          5.        Per   contra,   Mr.   Ashwin    Hon,   learned   Advocate      for

          Respondent No.1 and Mr. Prashant N. Khedkar, learned Advocate for

          Respondent No.3, support the impugned order. Though Respondent

          No.2 was served, none appeared.

          6.        Mr. Ashwin Hon, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1
Tauseef
                                            3 of 4                   89-WP.3729.2018




          submits that the Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and

          decree and remanded the matter for fresh decision. He submits that

          once the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication, the Trial Court is

          required to frame issues afresh and decide the suit independently.

          Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application below

          Exhibit-124.

          7.        Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

          and upon perusal of the record, including the judgment of the

          Appellate Court and its operative part, it is evident that the matter was

          remanded for fresh decision. It is not a case where the remand was

          restricted to specific issues. Once the Appellate Court directed the Trial

          Court to decide the suit afresh, the Trial Court was justified in framing

          issues afresh. Therefore, I find no error in the order passed by the Trial

          Court rejecting the application for recasting of issues.

          8.        In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the

          present writ petition.

          9.        Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to

          costs.

          10.       Learned Advocates submit that the suit is of the year 2006.

          Considering the pendency of the suit, this Court is of the view that the

          ends of justice would be met by directing the Trial Court to decide the

          suit within a stipulated time.
Tauseef
                                           4 of 4                89-WP.3729.2018




          11.       Accordingly, in view of the fact that the suit is pending since

          the year 2006, the Trial Court is directed to decide the R.C.S. No.236 of

          2006 expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from

          today.

                                             (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)




Tauseef