1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2909 OF 2010 Apparao s/o Pundlik Gaikwad & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Kaduba w/o Vithoba Gaikwad & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 7th APRIL, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Application tendered by the defendants requesting the court to frame additional issue has been turned down by the trial court and said interlocutory order passed on 9-2-2010 below exh. 35 in Regular Civil Suit no. 949/2007 is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects of the matter. 2 Respondent / original plaintiff instituted suit claiming declaration of ownership and injunction against the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings, trial court has framed issues on 29-6-2009. Issue no. 1 as framed by the trial court is as to "whether the plaintiff proves his entitlement over the suit property ?" Issue no. 4 as framed by the trial court is as to "whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed ?" Defendants want the court to frame issue as to "whether the mistake was committed while implementing the consolidation scheme and whether the name of father of the plaintiff is wrongly mutated during the consolidation scheme ?" 3 Plaintiff derives title from his father. While considering the issue as regards entitlement of the plaintiff to claim declaratory decree, he has to prove his title to the suit property. All relevant aspects necessary for proving the title are required to be considered by the trial court. Issue in respect of title is framed and the burden to prove the issues rests on the plaintiff. Trial court, in view of issues framed at sr. nos. 1 and 4 has turned down the application presented by the defendants. I do not find any error in the reasons recorded by the trial court while rejecting the application. Even otherwise, at this interlocutory stage of proceeding, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition therefore stands rejected summarily. 3 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp2909.10.odt