1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6909 OF 2009 Rajendra Tukaram Bodke ...Petitioner vs. 1.Smt.venubai Sripat Doke (since deceased through L.R) and others ...Respondents Mr.V.B.Nighot for the petitioner None for the respondents. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He invited my attention to the averments made in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the written statement of the petitioner. On the basis of the said averments, it was sought to be contended that the original first defendant has heirs and legal representatives and the stand taken by the first respondent-plaintiff that the first defendant has no heirs is erroneous. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the averments made in paragraph 21 have been completely ignored by the learned trial Judge while passing the impunged order. The contention raised by the petitioner in paragraph 20 is different from the contention raised in paragraph 21. In paragraph 21 it is contended that the first defendant is survived by heirs/legal representatives. 2 2 The aforesaid contention has been completely overlooked by the learned Judge while passing the impugned order. Under Rule 5 of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, the court has power to frame the additional issues any time before passing the decree. 3 The trial court after considering the paragraphs 20 and 21 of the written statement, will frame the necessary additional issues. 4 Subject to above direction, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE