ARNOLD BRAGANZA Vs. KAMLABAI PANDURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants original defendants have filed this appeal taking exception to the following order passed by the learned Additional district Judge, remanding the suit for a decision on additional issue.

(2.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Perriera for the appellants and learned Advocate Shri Lobo for the respondent (appointed under legal aid scheme ). The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Judge has remanded the matter to the trial Court, since material facts had been left out while relying documentary and oral evidence. Therefore, according to him irrespective of what the operative order states, remand is for reconsideration of the material evidence, which had been left out by the trial Judge. This contention has to be rejected because the operative order, whereby the learned Additional District Judge remanded the matter, is very clear. She has stated while remanding the matter to trial Court to frame additional issue on the point of locus standie of the plaintiffs and then, to decide the suit afresh after allowing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the said issue ( not on all issues generally) and "for that purpose " the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Additional district Judge remanded the matter only on the question of plaintiff's locus standie to file the suit. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, even if the plaintiffs have locus standie to file the suit, the suit is dismissed by the trial Court on merits. Therefore, even if upon remand, the plaintiffs are held to have locus standie, it does not alter the fate of the parties. Therefore, the impugned order would unnecessarily throw the parties in another unwarranted round of litigation. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. Costs in cause.