IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 776 OF 2009 SHRI SHITAL SITARAM PRABHU NACHINOLKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI TUKARAM LADU GADEKAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ... Respondent Mr. J. F. Melo, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 24th June, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. The Writ petitioner is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit no.151/2001/C/D and has filed this Writ petition against the Order dated 27.8.2007 by which the prayer of the plaintiff to delete issue no. 2 has been rejected. 3. Mr. J. F. Mello, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that plaintiff has no grievance as regards framing of two additional issues by impugned order dated 27.8.2007. 4. Respondents were duly served with notice but have chosen to remain absent. It appears that the suit pertains to property surveyed under no. 272/1 in which there is a house bearing no. 44 occupied by one Mrs. Kalyani Ladu Gadekar. The respondents resides in the adjoining property surveyed under no. 271/6 belonging to one Paulo Pereira. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff with the prayer for permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain them from demolishing the compound wall and constructing motorable road or access in the suit property i.e to say property under survey no. 272/1. A prayer for mandatory injunction to reconstruct the portion of the compound wall has also been sought. The said prayers of the plaintiff have been made based on the averments that on or about 3.9.2001 or there about the defendants have demolished portion of the compound wall of the property of the plaintiff on the northern side with intention to bring vehicles from the main road and also with the allegation that defendants have erected two coconut trees poles on the side of the demolished portion of the compound wall to be used as temporary gate "Goino", as defendants have bought a new vehicle. The case of the plaintiff is that said acts have been done by the defendants without their permission. 5. I have perused issue no. 2 originally framed. It appears that the defendants had filed claim of mundkarship in respect of house no. 44 existing in property claimed by the plaintiff but that was dismissed and the said dismissal has attained finality. 6. The suit of the plaintiff is certainly not for eviction of the defendants from the suit property under survey no. 272/1. The suit is only for permanent and mandatory injunction as can be seen from the prayer (a) and (b) of para 23 of the plaint. The defendants also do not claim any right in connection with either house no. 44 or of the house in their occupation in the property of said Perreira surveyed under no. 271/6. 7. In the light of the above, framing of issue no. 2 was uncalled for. It does not arise from the pleadings of the parties. Consequently the same is hereby deleted and to that extent impugned Order is hereby modified. 8. Writ petition is disposed off on the above terms. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn