1 WP 4531.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4531 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar,Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed Suit for declaration regarding the sale deeds executed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5 in favour of defendant no. 6 and further declaration that the plaintiffs are in possession of the said property, which was owned by the defendant no. 10 with further declaration that the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 161 of 1992 is null and void with the relief of perpetual injunction. 2. The Trial Court framed the issues on 29/9/2007. The parties adduced their evidence and when the matter was at the stage of final 2 WP 4531.2011 arguments, the petitioners have filed an application for framing of additional issue to the effect : “ Do the defendant no. 1 to 6 prove that CTS No. 5981, Sheet No. 127 is part and parcel of old agri. Survey no. 74 of village Vazirabad ”. The Trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent nos. 8 and 9. 4. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that just because the Suit is at the stage of final arguments, that can not be a ground to reject the application for framing of additional issue. According to the learned counsel, the additional issue can be framed even at the time of delivery of Judgment. The issues depict the real controversy between the parties. A fact affirmed by one party and denied by another party, gives rise to the issue. According to the learned counsel, 3 WP 4531.2011 when the defendants have raised the pleadings that the suit property is part of S.No. 74, then the burden lye upon them to prove the said fact and the issue proposed was necessary. 5. No doubt, a fact affirmed by one party and denied by another party, gives rise to the issue. The Issues are framed by the Court at Exh. 93. The first issue itself deals with, whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of property bearing Municipal No. 1-4-462, 1-4-466, 1-4-467, 1-4-468, 1-4-469 (City Survey No. 5981) situated at New Abadi Vazirabad, Nanded, 6. While proving the said issue, all the attending circumstances will have to be taken into consideration i.e. of which part the said property is and all other relevant aspects. I do not see that the issue as proposed would be essential, more particularly, when the parties have closed their evidence. The issues regarding the binding nature of the Judgment and decree in R.C.S. No. 161 of 1992, so also, the validity of the sale deed dated 11/7/2003 are framed. All these issues would take care of the controversy between the parties. In such circumstances, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the issue as proposed by the petitioner is not framed. 4 WP 4531.2011 7. Taking into account the above conspectus of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4531.2011