SAYED A.A., J.:- This petition is directed against the order dated 10th November, 1989 whereby the Appeal No. 521 of 1987 filed by the petitioners in Obstructionist Notice No. 98 of 1984 in L.E. and C. Suit No. 15/16 of 1978 came to be partly allowed and the findings of the trial Court in so far as the Obstructionists Notice not being maintainable were set aside and the Obstructionist Notice was 'remanded' to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. Direction was also given by the Appeal Court to dispose of the Obstructionist Notice as early as possible and preferably before the end of June, 1990. Thus what is challenged in this writ petition is the order of remand by the Appeal Court of the Obstructionist Notice on the ground that the Appeal Court itself could have decided the matter on merits. 2. The petitioners, the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, had filed the suit, inter alia for recovery possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent. The decree came to be passed on 27th April, 1982. The said decree was sought to be executed, when the same was obstructed by the present respondents. The petitioner then took out a notice for removal of the obstruction being Obstructionist Notice No. 98 of 1984. Evidence was recorded, and the Obstructionist Notice ultimately came to be dismissed on a technical ground that the same was not properly instituted in as much as the Estate Manager was not authorised to take out the Obstructionist Notice. The trial Court while holding that the Obstructionist Notice was not properly instituted, observed that Rule 97(1) of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the application be signed and verified by the same person i.e. the decree holder and the Obstructionist Notice was not signed by the duly authorised, person. The trial Court, however, without going into the merits of the Obstructionist Notice, dismissed the same and the operative part of the Order reads as follows: "Obstructionist Notice is incompetent and not properly instituted." 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal being Appeal No. 521 of 1987. The Appeal Court formulated the following points for determination; (1) Is the Obstructionist Notice not maintainable on the ground that it is not signed by the plaintiffs- decree holder? Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal being Appeal No. 521 of 1987. The Appeal Court formulated the following points for determination; (1) Is the Obstructionist Notice not maintainable on the ground that it is not signed by the plaintiffs- decree holder? (2) Is the finding given by the trial Court not in accordance with the provisions of law and is liable to be set aside? 4. The Appeal Court while holding that the findings oft~ Obstructionists Court were erroneous, in so far as maintainability was concerned, remanded the matter to the trial Court and further directed the trial Court to dispose of the said Obstructionist notice as early as possible preferably by the end of June, 1990. Aggrieved by this order, to the extent of direction of remand, the petitioners have filed this present petition. 5. Though not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition, reference may be made to a Writ Petition No. 21 of 1990, which was filed against the Appeal Court's order by the respondents herein, which came to be rejected and the order therein reads thus: "Heard Mr. Agarwal. No reason to interfere with the order impugned because the Deputy Chairman had the powers of the Port Trust and in his turn has granted power to Assistant Estate Manager. Merely on hyper technicalities it is not necessary nor desirable to interfere. Rejected. 13.3.1990" 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appeal Court ought to have gone into the merits of the matter raised in the Obstructionist Notice and decided the matter finally itself and ought not have remanded matter to the trial Court inasmuch as all the pleadings and evidence were available before the said Appeal Court. It is submitted that the impugned Order to the extent of directions of remand are contrary to the provisions of Order XLI, Rules 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further contended that the Obstructionist Notice contemplates summary procedure and the Appeal Court thus ought to have decided the matter without remanding the matter to the trial Court. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents on• the other hand supported the impugned order and submitted that the merits of the case were not taken into consideration by the trial Court trying the Obstructionist Notice and the Appeal Court has rightly remanded the matter to the' trial Court. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents on• the other hand supported the impugned order and submitted that the merits of the case were not taken into consideration by the trial Court trying the Obstructionist Notice and the Appeal Court has rightly remanded the matter to the' trial Court. He further submitted that the Executing Court has to determine the identity of the property so as to see whether the decree is properly executed or not. 8. I have perused the provisions under Order XLI, Rules 24 and 25 of the C.P.C. Order XLI, Rule 24 speaks about determination of the suit finally by the Appeal Court. On a plain reading of the said Rule 24, it is noted that even if the evidence on record is sufficient, 'discretion' has been given to the Appeal Court to determine the case finally and the proviso is thus directory and not mandatory. In fact section 107 of C.P.C. as well as Rules 23 and 25 of Order XLI specifically empower the Appellate Court to refer/remand the case to the trial Court and it cannot be said that the Appeal Court was statutorily obliged to decide the Obstructionists Notice itself on merits. I am of the view that the Appeal Court has rightly remanded the matter to the trial Court, as the trial Court had not given its findings on merits. In fact, the trial Court ought to have decided the matter on all issues, both of law as well as facts, peculiarly when the entire evidence was on record in the matter. 9. I find it rather unfortunate that despite the order of the Appeal Court giving direction to the trial Court to dispose of the Obstructionist Notice by the end of June, 1990, the petitioners have chosen to file this petition and obtained stay to the hearing and final disposal of the Obstructionist Notice No. 98 of 1984. By virtue of the order of stay obtained by the petitioners, as far back as on 13.6.1990, the Obstructionist Notice has remained pending since. As to whose detriment or benefit this has worked, I would not want to comment. 10. By virtue of the order of stay obtained by the petitioners, as far back as on 13.6.1990, the Obstructionist Notice has remained pending since. As to whose detriment or benefit this has worked, I would not want to comment. 10. In my view the reasoning of the Appeal Court in remanding the Obstructionist Notice to the trial Court cannot be faulted and I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent No.1. Rule is discharged. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to direct the trial Court to decide the Obstructionist Notice No. 98 of 1984 by the end of October, 2008. 13. Registrar (Judicial) to ensure that the Record and Proceedings is sent to the concerned Court at the earliest. Petition dismissed.