- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1138 OF 2008 Smt. Madhagi G. Mangoli Petitioner Vs. Sitaram V. Sakate & Ors. Respondents Mr. S. G. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 PC . Heard Mr. Deshmukh, appearing for the petitioner. Perused the application filed (Exh.168) in Special Civil Suit No. 152 of 2005 for the amendment and recasting the issues. 2. The application is pressed in so far as paragraph 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7. The learned Judge has held that in so far as para 2.5, the request therein is covered by Issue No.4. In my view, the learned Judge should consider properly wording the issues, so as to include the aspect of frustration of the contract/ suit agreement. Although I am not interfering with the order under challange, yet, liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply for - 2 - incorporating paragraph 2.5 and 2.6 and such application would always be maintainable and more so in the light of the observations in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. In any event, the learned Judge to consider and incorporate paragraph 2.6 or if the learned Judge is of the view that no issue is required to be framed and the parties can argue on the basis of the pleas raised in the instant application and the reply thereto, then, appropriate order to that effect be passed. 3. In so far as the issue with regard to waiver is concerned, to my mind the petitioner is not prejudiced as Issue Nos. 1 and 3 covers the same. 4. In the light of the liberty granted above, so also, modification suggested, there is no reason to pass any further order and give direction. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J.]