1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5003 OF 2009 Raghunath s/o Sangram Gaikwad (Died) Through his LRS. 1. Shivaji s/o Raghunath Gaikwad, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Waigaon (S), Tq.Udgir, District Latur and others. .. Petitioners Versus Keshavrao s/o Sangram Gaikwad (Died) Through LRs. 1. Pilyabai w/o Kehsavrao Gaikwad, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Waigaon Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur and others. .. Respondents ... Mr. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.D. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 31st JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition 2 is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and for respondent No.1. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 18-07-2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udgir below Exhibit-221 in R.C.S. No. 198/1981. 4. The petitioners - original defendant Nos. 3 to 5 filed application dated 29-06-2009 for framing issues. (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner and possessor of suit land on the basis of sale deed? (2) Whether the defendants prove that the late Raghunath was in possession of suit land as tenant? (3) Whether the defendants 3 further prove that late Raghunath agreed to purchase the land and since then defendants are in possession of suit lands? (4) Whether Civil Court have jurisdiction in view of consolidation record and judgment in for 7 defendants.? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed.? (6) What order issued? 5. The said application came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge, J.D. Georai by order dated 18-07-2009 on the ground that similar application at Exhibit-78 was also rejected on 03-03-1993. The trial Court further observed that the High Court in Writ Petition NO. 1773 of 2006 directed to dispose of the suit in any case on or before August 2009. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that in 1994, the order has been passed under Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act and as per that order, the petitioners are 4 in possession of the suit property. Though these facts were known to the petitioners in 1994, first time they filed application on 29-06-2009 for framing additional issues. 7. In any case, the trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the similar application was filed at Exhibit-78 and same has been rejected on 03-03-1993. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners produced certified copy of Exhibit-78 and order dated 03-03-1993 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D. Georai. In that application, original defendant No. 1 has prayed that issue regarding tenancy of defendant No. 1 over the suit land may be framed and may be referred to Tenancy Court for giving finding. Said order dated 03-03-1993 below Exhibit-78 was not challenged by any party. 8. In any case, the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1773 of 2006 directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit on or before August 5 2009. Considering these facts, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition and same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. 9. It is needless to state that the observations made hereinabove should not come in the way of the parties at the time of final disposal of R.C.S. No. 198/1991. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/JUL09/wp5003.09