1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2113 OF 2010 (Ravindrasingh Raghuvirsingh Thakur vs. Laxmibai wd/o Sardarsing Thakur & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 30, 2010. Heard Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner. The controversy before this Court is about order dated 25.03.2010 whereby the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akot, has refused to frame additional issues for adjudication. The Court has found that similar application was repeated again and earlier application was already rejected on 16.08.2006. In spite of this position, I have heard Shri Khapre, learned counsel on merits. The additional issues sought for by the petitioner – defendant are : 1. Whether the defendant is cultivating the field as tenant in pursuance of lease dated 01.06.1987 ? 2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? Issues already framed at Annexure - 6 are as under : 1. Does the plaintiff prove that suit land is in illegal possession of defendant ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages 2 amounting to Rs.30,000/- ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for enquiry with mesne profits u/s. 20 rule 12 C.P.C. ? 4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ? 5. To what order, costs and decree ? Thus, it is apparent that the respondents – plaintiffs have to prove that the suit land is in illegal possession of the defendant. If the petitioner – defendant is tenant, it is apparent that the issue will be stand answered against the respondents – plaintiffs. Thus, nature of possession of the petitioner is already required to be considered by the trial Court while answering issue No.1. In view of the issue already framed, it is apparent that the issue sought additionally is not required. The question of law can be argued and considered by the trial Court and in any case the application appears to have been filed after the matter was closed for final arguments. I am in agreement with the finding of trial Court that second such application was moved only to delay the disposal of suit. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.