IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1938 OF 2009 Sahebhussain Badesaheb Sajjan ...Petitioner V/s. Ainuddin Rasul Patel ...Respondent ...... Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for Petitioner. None for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 27, 2009. FEBRUARY 27, 2009. FEBRUARY 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The order impugned in this Petition is not only interlocutory order but is a discretionary one with regard to question of framing proper issue. The Court below has considered the argument of the Petitioner and was of the view that it was not necessary to frame any further issue. The argument of the Petitioner that since he was challenging the Will, it was necessary to frame additional Issue : 2 : No.1 mentioned in Exhibit 41 clearly overlooks that the said aspect can be addressed even while considering Issue No.1 already framed. Insofar as additional Issue No.2 suggested by the Petitioner is concerned, the same can be addressed while considering issue No.5 which is already framed. Even additional issue No.3 can be dealt with while answering issue No.1 already framed. At any rate, it is always open to the Trial Court to reframe or recast the issues at any stage. The trial ought to proceed. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, in particular, in Paragraph 39, that the wrong done, if any, could be set right and the rights and equities can be adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence, dismissed. 3. Needless to observe that all questions raised in the present Petition are kept open to be : 3 : agitated by the Petitioners in the appeal or revision to be preferred against the final decision at the conclusion of the proceedings which will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.