1. Heard Mr. Thorat learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Nighot for Respondent No.1.

2. A short contention of Advocate Thorat on behalf of the Appellant (Original Plaintiff No.5) is that the impugned Judgment dated 17.3.2008 passed by the District Judge 3 Nasik in Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1996 remitting the controversy back to the trial Court is perverse and shows total non-application of mind. He submits that the Appeal arises out Special Civil Suit No.57 of 1990 which has been disposed of finally on 1.2.1996 after recording of compromise. Thus, against the compromise decree Regular Civil Appeal was not maintainable. He has taken the Court through the relevant provisions to substantiate his contentions. In alternative and only to demonstrate that the controversy is now rendered infructuous and remand is only an empty formality, he has also invited attention of the Court to necessary facts.

3. Learned counsel Nighot has submitted that Respondent No.1 is one of the Plaintiffs and Suit has been disposed of as compromised without consent of Respondent no.1 and after deleting him from the array of parties. His contention therefore is that decree in Suit is not a Consent De