1 wp 5646.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5646 OF 2011 Subhash Laxman Shinde .. Petitioner Versus Bhausaheb Hiraman Salve and others .. Respondents Shri Z. M. Pathan, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit for declaration regarding the exchange deed, injunction and in alternate for possession. The defendants have disputed the case of the plaintiff. The Trial Court framed the issues on 21.10.2008. The plaintiff has entered into the witness box. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an application for framing additional issues A to H. Said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Pathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits 2 wp 5646.11 that when a fact is affirmed by one party and denied by another party it gives rise to framing an issue and the Court should frame issues in that regard. The defendants have pleaded about non-joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction, but no such issue has been framed. The issues are necessary. Shri Pathan, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Jayram P. Kamat Vs. State Bank of India reported in 1997 (2) B. C. J. 440. 3. No doubt, the facts affirmed by one party and denied by another party gives rise to an issue. The Court has to consider the specific plea as is held in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Jayram P. Kamat referred supra. 4. The Court while dealing with the application for framing of additional issue has considered that the averrments in respect of non joinder of necessary parties is vague. It has also not clarified by the respondent as to how the Court has no jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court has considered the issue which are already framed and has observed that the issues which are proposed also can be considered while considering the issues which are already framed. It has also been observed that the evidence of plaintiff is 3 wp 5646.11 already complete and the matter is pending for defendants’ evidence. 5. The order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11