1 wp3355.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3355 OF 2011 Mukhtar Begum wd/o Fazal Ahmed Khan, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Nawabpura, Aurangabad and others. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Alka Co-op. Housing Society through its Chief Promotor and Members and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Pradeep N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate holding for Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for respondent No.5. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the application for 2 wp3355.11 framing additional issue on the basis of averments in the written statement filed by respondent No.5 came to be rejected in the impugned order. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, at any stage of the trial, the Court has power to entertain such application and additional issue can be framed. According to him, it is necessary to frame the additional issue to set at rest the controversy involved in the matter. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and submitted that, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents would rely upon the reasons recorded by the Courts below and also application which was filed before the trial Court and submit that, the belated application has been rightly rejected by the trial Court and therefore, this Court may not interfere. 4. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order and dates which are available for the 3 wp3355.11 perusal, issues are framed by the Court on 09-08-1991, even written statement filed by respondent No. 5 is on 30-12-1991. It is also not in dispute that, the evidence of the plaintiff is in progress. Apart from the above, learned Judge has also recorded in para-4 that, the issue as suggested to be framed by the defendant cannot be framed as it casts negative burden. Apart from merits of the matter, I am convinced that such application at belated stage after 20 years after filing the written statement by respondent No.5, has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. Therefore, apart from the merits, belated application filed at the stage when evidence of the plaintiff is in progress, could not have been considered by the Court and the Curt has rightly rejected the said application. No interference is called for. Hence writ petition is rejected. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11