20-ao977-19.doc vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.977 OF 2019 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1612 OF 2019 Yusuf T. Jummani, since deceased through L.Rs. - Imran Haji Y. Jummani …Appellant V/s. Chief Officer, Jawhar Municipal Council & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Chintan Y. Shah for the Appellant. Mr.Suraj N. Naik i/b Mr.R.D. Suryawanshi for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2026. P.C. :- 1. The captioned Appeal from Order challenges the order dated 9th August 2019 passed by the District Judge–10, Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2013. Respondent No. 2, though duly served, is not present. In these circumstances, the Appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. I have heard Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the 1/4 VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2026.02.02 10:25:39 +0530 20-ao977-19.doc Appellant and Mr. Naik, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, Municipal Council. The principal grievance of the Appellant is that the First Appellate Court, by the impugned order, has mechanically remanded the matter to the Trial Court without framing any points for determination or recording findings on the issues that arose for consideration in the First Appeal. It was thus that Mr. Shah submitted the impugned order was bad in law and must be set aside. 3. In support of his contention that the impugned order was ex facie bad in law, Mr. Shah placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad v. Sunder Singh1, and in particular paragraphs 18, 32 and 33 thereof, to point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that an order of remand under Order XLI Rule 23 or Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be passed routinely, and that the Appellate Court is duty- bound to decide the Appeal on merits where the conditions precedent for remand are not satisfied. 1 (2008) 8 SCC 485 2/4 20-ao977-19.doc 4. He then further submitted that the decision in Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (supra) has been followed by this Court in Khanderao Damu Pingale & Ors. v. Shahadu Walu Pingale & Ors.2. Basis this, Mr. Shah submitted that the Appeal would have to be allowed and the matter remitted back for a proper consideration. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the impugned order. I find merit in the grievance raised by the Appellant. The impugned order merely sets aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remands the matter for a fresh hearing, without framing any points for determination, without recording any findings on the merits of the appeal, and without recording satisfaction as to the fulfilment of the statutory requirements for exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 23 or Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and order dated 9th August 2019 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The First Appellate Court is directed to reconsider Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2013 afresh and to decide 2 [Bombay High Court] Order dt. 13th April 2018 in Appeal from Order No. 318 of 2011 3/4 20-ao977-19.doc the same on merits by framing appropriate points for determination and by recording substantive reasons in accordance with law. 7. The Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) 4/4