1 wp 7860.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7860 OF 2011 Sanduji Shankarrao Jawale .. Petitioner Versus Babulal Shankarrao Ubale and anr. .. Respondents Shri R. K. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent No. 1 had filed suit for simplicitor injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over plot No. 4 and 8 of CTS No. 11505/1. The Court framed the issues. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application for additional issues. The Trial Court rejected the said application for framing additional issues. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri R. K. Jadhavar, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the plaintiff has denied the title of the 2 wp 7860.11 defendant. The defendant has purchased the property by registered sale deed. The plaintiff has given incorrect boundaries in the plaint and as the title of the defendant is denied, the defendant had filed an application for framing the issue of the title of the defendant. The Court should have allowed the said application. The learned counsel contends that a fact denied by one party and averred by another gives rise to an issue. In such circumstances, the issue proposed by the present petitioner was relevant for the effective adjudication of the suit. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the pleadings and the order impugned in the present petition. 4. The petitioner vide application for framing of additional issue proposed the following issue to be framed : “Whether the defendant proves that, he is owner and possessor of the suit plot which is purchased from CTS No. 11505/1, from Kondiba Ganuji Bhujange by way of registered sale deed, and thereafter mutation is effected in the name defendant since he is the owner and possessor of the suit land, as per the registered sale deed adm, 50 x 60 sq. ft as per the 3 wp 7860.11 boundaries in the registered sale deed." 5. The suit being for simplicitor injunction it is for the plaintiff to prove that he is in possession of the property. It is for the plaintiff to prove the status. The issue in that regard has been framed by the Court. Unless the plaintiff proves his case and his actual physical possession, the plaintiff would not be entitled for the relief. There is no necessity to frame the issue about ownership of the defendant as the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove his case. The Trial Court has rightly dealt with the matter. 6. In view of that no error is committed by the Court in rejecting the application. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11