JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the following observations made by the second appellate court in its order dated 23-8-85 :- "The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Hon'ble High Court has held that the suit was not maintainable at all and that defendant was neither a Kashtkar nor was he saying himself to be a Kashtkar. This observation in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court dated 16-2-82 should also be considered by the trial court. Consequently the case is sent back to the trial court for deciding it keeping in view the observations made above." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner expresses surprise as to what proceeding would be pending before the Trial Court in which the above observation of the second appellate court would be taken into account. 3. It appears that the proceedings before the Second appellate court arose out of proceedings for restitution under Section 144 of C.P.C. True that the observation of the second appellate court is little vague. 4. However in the ends of justice it is proper to observe that when this court set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate court and second appellate court the proceedings before the trial court shall remain pending after the decree has been set aside. It would be for the trial court to pass final order with a view to terminate the suit filed by the contesting opposite parties. In this view of the matter when the above observations of the second appellate court sought to be challenged in the present writ petition I feel that the trial court can pass final order in the suit in the light of the observations emphasised by the second appellate court in the impugned judgment dated 23-8-85. 5. If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is correct that nothing further is to be done by the revenue court in the matter on the observations of this Court, the suit was not maintainable, therefore, the decree passed by the trial court was set aside. The petitioner shall not be sufferer in any manner by the impugned observation of the second appellate court in the impugned order dated 23-8-85. it is well known that no writ lies against the finding or observation. The petitioner shall not be sufferer in any manner by the impugned observation of the second appellate court in the impugned order dated 23-8-85. it is well known that no writ lies against the finding or observation. Since the impugned judgment of the second appellate court is in favour of the petitioner, the impugned observation would not stand in the way of the petitioner in any manner nor shall work any prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned finding. 6. In the result the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.