( 1 ) 78 AO 83 OF 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 78 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 83 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15126 OF 2018 IN AO/83/2018 USMAN SAYYED DASTGIR VERSUS PARIMAL SAHAKARI GRUHANIRMAN SANSTHA THROUGH IT S CHAIRMAN RAMESH GHEWARCHAND KOTHARI WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4849 OF 2021 IN CA/15126/2018 PARIMAL SAHAKARI GRUHNIRMAN SANSTHA MARYADIT, SHRIRAMPUR, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN RAMESH G. KOTHARI VERSUS OSMAN SAYYAD DASGIR WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 27 OF 2021 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4850 OF 2021 IN AO/27/2021 PARIMAL SAHAKARI GRUHANIRMAN SANSTHA MARYADIT, SHRIRAMPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN RAMESH G. KOTHARI VERSUS OSMAN SAYYAD DASTGIR … Mr. Shubham S. Kote h/f. Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for Appellant … CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 28.01.2026 PER COURT :- 2026:BHC-AUG:3786 ( 2 ) 78 AO 83 OF 2018 . Both appeals can be disposed of by common order. The substantial questions of law were already framed on 09.01.2026. 2. Both parties are challenging judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018 passed by the District Judge-1, Shrirampur in Regular Civil Appeal No.72 of 2013 remanding the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to implead a necessary party and to decide the suit afresh by extending opportunity of hearing. 3. Regular Civil Suit No.10 of 2004 was filed by Parimal Sahakari Gruh Nirmal Sanstha Maryadit (hereinafter referred to as “the co-operative society), for eviction of Usman Sayyad Dastgir under the Maharashtra Rent control Act, 1999. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 30th October 2013. Being aggrieved, the co-operative society preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.72 of 2013. It is observed by lower Appellate Court that Dr. Popatlal Kothari was a necessary party to whom the plot was allotted by the co-operative society. Instead of filing suit by him, the Co-operative society was espousing the cause. The matter was therefore relegated to the Trial Court by the impugned order to implead him as a party and to decide the suit afresh. 4. Both parties are unanimous that order of remand is unwarranted and illegal. The lower Appellate Court could have dealt with the matter on merits by invoking powers under Order 41 Rules 24 and 33 of C.P.C. In that ( 3 ) 78 AO 83 OF 2018 view of the matter, it is appropriate to quash the impugned order and relegate the matter to the lower Appellate Court to decide it on merits. 5. Independently also, I hold that the Appellate Court has ample material before it to deal with the matter on merits. It is unwarranted to relegate the matter to the Trial Court for impleading the necessary party. The person held to be a necessary party is not comingforth seeking impleadment or opportunity to lead evidence. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 6. Both appeals are allowed. Judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.72 of 2013 is quashed and set aside. 7. The Appellate Court shall decide the matters on its own merits after extending opportunity of hearing and decide the appeals expeditiously within a period of eight (8) months from today. 8. Parties shall appear before lower Appellate Court on 09.02.2026. 7. Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) PRW