1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 4727 of 2011 Sri Damodar J. Sangewar Vs. Sau. Leelabai B. Karnewar. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Amol Mardikar, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 7 th October, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 13.4.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for the deletion of the issues. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing interference and obstruction in the possession of the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner denied the claim of the respondent and pleaded that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property in view of an agreement of sale dated 20.11.1996. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was put in possession of the suit property from the date of agreement of sale, i.e. 20.11.1996. The petitioner also pleaded that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent towards part performance of the contract. Hence the trial court framed the following thee issues along with the others. 1. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff executed an agreement of sale dated 20.11.1996 of the suit land ? 2 2. Whether the defendant proves that he is an independent cultivating possession of the suit land since 20.11.1996 ? 3. Whether the defendant proves that he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff as an earnest amount towards part sale consideration ? The petitioner sought the deletion of these issues. The trial court rejected the application of the petitioner. The trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as both the parties were claiming to be in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff was claiming to be in possession of the same in view of an agreement of sale dated 20.11.1996. The issues sought to be deleted were necessary for effectively deciding the controversy between the parties. Merely because the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent, it cannot be said that the issues were liable to be deleted. Since the order passed by the trial court is just and proper, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.