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 2026:BHC-AUG:14870 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