Heard Mr. M. M. Patil (Beedkar), learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. N. Kalani. learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. Admit.

3. With the consent of the parties, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing.

4. The present Respondent had filed a suit for injunction against one Mohd. Osman s/o. Pir sab. The said suit came to be decreed on 1.4.2006. After the said suit was decreed. the defendant Mohd. Osman preferred an appeal on 15.4.2006. During the pendency of the appeal Mohd. Osman sold the suit property to Hanifabegum vide registered sale deed dt.l.6.2006. Thereafter, Hanifabegum made an application to implead her as an appellant in place of Mohd. Osman purportedly invoking Order 22. Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The said application was allowed. Mohd. Osman came to be deleted and Hanifabegum continued the appeal. The District Court while dismissing the appeal did not dialect on the merits of the matter and on the count that the decree passed by the trial Court is binding on Hanifabegum, did not interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The prayer of remand made by the appellant was also not considered. Against the said judgment and decree, the appella