901-WP-3066-2023.doc Arjun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3066 OF 2023 1] Bhagawatilal Teckchand Mehta Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs, 1A] Kailashdevi Bhagawatilal Mehta & Ors. …Petitioners Versus 1] Sanjay Ganesh Puranik & Ors. …Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Shirish V. Pitre a/w Amol Ghuge, for the Petitioners. Mr. Akash Warang i/b Mayuresh Datar, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 14 NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Pitre, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Warang, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the Judgment and Order dated 10th January 2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thane, in Regular Civil Appeal No.157 of 2017 as also the Judgment and Decree dated 8th June 2017 passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, in Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 1996. 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.11.17 22:43:17 +0530 901-WP-3066-2023.doc 3. Mr. Pitre, learned Counsel, submits that as far as ground of the bonafide requirement is concerned, only following discussion is found in Paragraph No. 22 of the impugned Judgment :- “22. Perused the impugned Judgment it seems that Ld. Judge after considering the pleadings, documents and evidence on record has categorically held that plaintiffs have established that they required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their own use and occupation. …” 4. Mr. Pitre, learned Counsel, submits that the impugned Judgment and Order of the learned Principal District Judge is totally perverse, as nothing has been considered by the learned Principal District Judge. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Warang, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, points out the following discussion as set out in Paragraph No.14 :-  He further admitted that his father or he ever search for any other place for their business despite filing the suit.  He further admitted that shops and commercial premises are newly constructed at a distance of two minutes from the suit premises.  It is pertinent to note that the defendants neither challenged nor denied the averments about the bonafide requirement by the sons of the plaintiff and therefore said evidence remained unchallenged. 6. However, perusal of the record shows that the learned Appellate Court has not at all considered the pleadings and evidence on record concerning the bonafide requirement. It is settled legal position that, as 2 901-WP-3066-2023.doc far as the Appellate Court is concerned, it is the final Court with respect to findings of fact. The impugned Judgment of the learned Appellate Court is totally perverse. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari 1 in Paragraph No.15 has observed as under about the manner in which the First Appellate Court shall deal with the First Appeal. The relevant portion of Paragraph No.15 of the decision of the Supreme Court is as under :- “First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court.” 8. Mr. Pitre, learned Counsel, states that there are certain other grounds also to challenge the impugned Judgment and Decree. 9. Mr. Warang, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that although the learned Appellate Court has not discussed the evidence in detail, there are some indications that part of the evidence was considered. However, as the learned Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the entire evidence and the pleadings of the parties, learned Counsel, on instructions, states that, by consent, the Judgment and Decree dated 10th January 2023 passed by the learned Principal 1 (2001) 3 SCC 179 3 901-WP-3066-2023.doc District Judge, Thane, in Regular Civil Appeal no.157 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the following Order is passed by consent of the parties :- i. The Judgment and Order dated 10th January 2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thane, in Regular Civil Appeal No.157 of 2017 is quashed and set aside and the said Appeal is restored to the file of the Principal District Judge, Thane. ii. Both the parties shall appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Thane on 8th December 2025 at 11:00 am. iii. The learned Principal District Judge, Thane shall thereafter fix the date for hearing of Regular Civil Appeal No.157 of 2017. iv. As the Appeal is of the year 2017, the learned Principal District Judge, Thane is requested to dispose of the said Appeal expeditiously, on or before 30th April 2026. v. It is clarified that all contentions on merits are expressly kept open. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 4