1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11395 OF 2010 Gahininath Janu Bodkhe & Anr. ....Petitioners. Versus Ramrao s/o. Narayan Kashid ....Respondent. Mr. R.R. Mantri h/f. Mr. Y.V. Kakade, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21st February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. The Trial Court has found that issue of readiness and willingness of plaintiff before it to perform his part of agreement dated 14.6.2002 need not be framed separately as both parties had led evidence as if that issue exists and after noticing that indirectly it is covered by issue no. 7. 2. Shri. Mantri with advocate Kakade for the petitioners/defendants has urged that, that issue is vital and must be framed. According to him, suit for the purpose of specific performance of contract cannot be allowed to be proceeded further in absence of that issue. 2 3. Advocate Mrs. Deshmukh, on the other hand, points out that after remand by this Court on first appeal, no fresh evidence has been adduced and the Court has correctly found that the parties have adduced necessary evidence even in respect of readiness and willingness. 4. I find that Court below has in impugned order considered relevant aspects of the matter and there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. With liberty to petitioners to challenge that order after suit is finally decided, present writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp11395.10