JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in petition is to the order dated 27/06/2016 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Sakoli, District Bhandara rejecting application for amendment preferred by defendants. 3. Respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration, partition and separate possession. That suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.110/2007. Vide judgment and decree dated 22/10/2010, suit was partly decreed and 1/3rd share each to the parties came to be granted. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, petitioners/ defendants preferred appeal before the District Court, Bhandara. The appeal was allowed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned Principal District Judge, Bhandara vide judgment and decree dated 13/04/2015 held that trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction and the suit was not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. While allowing the appeal, matter was remanded with direction to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh by affording opportunity to plaintiffs to make proper valuation of the suit and to pay requisite court fee and opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 5. After matter was remanded, petitioners filed an application [Exh.97] for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Two contentions were raised by proposed amendment (i) regarding partial partition and (ii) regarding valuation of the suit. Application was objected by plaintiffs. The trial Court vide order dated 27/06/2016 observed that suit was remanded for restricted purpose to the extent of valuation and rejected the proposed amendment. Being aggrieved, original defendants have preferred this writ petition. 6. The limited question in the petition is whether suit was remanded to the extent of valuation of suit or for decision on merits after ascertaining the valuation of the suit. The operative order passed by the learned Principal Judge in R.C.A. No.145/2008 reads as under : 1. Appeal is hereby allowed with cost. 2. Impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd October, 2010 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.110/2007 Pralhad and one other ….Vs.... The operative order passed by the learned Principal Judge in R.C.A. No.145/2008 reads as under : 1. Appeal is hereby allowed with cost. 2. Impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd October, 2010 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.110/2007 Pralhad and one other ….Vs.... Maroti and 3 others, by the Court of Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Sakoli is hereby set aside and suit is remanded to the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Sakoli for decision afresh by affording opportunity to the plaintiffs to make valuation of the suit properly and to pay requisite Court Fee and hearing opportunity to both parties. 3. Respondents shall pay cost of appeal to appellants and bear their own cost. 4. Parties are directed to appear before trial Court on 22/04/2015. 5. As suit under reference is of a age more than 5 years, trial Court is hereby directed to decide it by the end of July, 2015. 6. Decree be drawn up accordingly. 7. It can be seen from the judgment of the Appellate Court that valuation of the suit according to the Appellate Court was not properly made as relief of declaration was also sought by the plaintiffs. Once the Appellate Court held that trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction and sets aside the impugned judgment and decree in suit with a direction to decide the suit afresh, it cannot be accepted that suit was remanded for a limited purpose i.e. for ascertaining the valuation. 8. The proposed amendment as indicated above relates to valuation of suit and relief of partial partition claimed by the plaintiffs. It does not change the nature of suit. On the contrary, it is essential to decide the real controversy between the parties. The observations made by the trial Court for rejection of amendment application are not in consonance with the order passed by the Appellate Court. Interference is thus warranted in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the following order. ORDER i. Writ Petition No.5094/2016 is partly allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 27/06/2016 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Sakoli below application [Exh.97] in R.C.S. No.110/2007 is quashed and set aside. iii. Application [Exh.97] is allowed. iv. Petitioners to carryout amendment within a period of two weeks. v. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 30th June, 2017. vi. ii. Impugned order dated 27/06/2016 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Sakoli below application [Exh.97] in R.C.S. No.110/2007 is quashed and set aside. iii. Application [Exh.97] is allowed. iv. Petitioners to carryout amendment within a period of two weeks. v. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 30th June, 2017. vi. Trial Court to proceed and decide the suit in accordance with the law and as per the direction of the first Appellate Court. vii. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.