1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5096/2008 (Kishor R. Khati and others vs. Vijayabai B. Dhanodkar and others) CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 4 th DECEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Khati for the petitioners. Perused the impugned order. From argument of Advocate Khati and also from impugned order, it is apparent that the petitioners/defendants apprehend that as burden has been placed upon them, the plaintiff need not to prove anything. Perusal of issues at Exh.85 clearly shows that by first four issues, the court below has placed burden upon the plaintiffs. Thereafter additional issues have been framed vide Issue Nos. 5A and 5B, which requires petitioners/defendants to prove that they are legal heirs of deceased Ramrao Khati. The plaintiffs also claimed to be legal heirs of same person Shri Ramrao Khati. It is apparent that, in view of this position, the trial Court has rightly framed the additional issues because burden to show that Mandakini was legally wedded wife of deceased Ramrao Khati could not have 2 been placed upon the plaintiffs. But then that does not mean that court below has absolved the plaintiffs of burden cast upon them by earlier issues. It is also apparent that the suit cannot be decreed merely because the present petitioners failed to discharge burden upon them by the trial Court. The suit is of year 1995. No case is made out at this stage warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. However, petitioners are at liberty to challenge the impugned order after final adjudication if circumstances so warrant. JUDGE Rvjalit