( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2009 Dhondiba s/o Bhagwan Gund & another PETITIONER VERSUS Grampanchayat Suratgaon and three others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. K.S. Bhore, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, advocate holding for Mr. L.C. Patil, advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners’ suit (R.C.S. No. 39/2003) is for perpetual injunction. The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed an application for framing of certain issues. The petitioners submitted that in view of the specific defence raised by the respondents, issue regarding alleged gift of the right to draw water of the well in question was required to be framed. The trial Court rejected the application except partly allowing the same regarding framing of the issues regarding absence of ( 2 ) notice under section 108 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. 3. Since the suit itself is only for perpetual injunction, the material issue involved is as to whether the petitioners are in lawful enjoyment of the well in question and that the respondents obstructed the lawful enjoyment. Considering the nature of suit, the other issues need not be framed though certain pleadings are stated by the defendants. The suit is not for declaration of ownership and as such, the issue regarding gift claimed by the defendant No. 1 need not be framed. The petition is, therefore, disposed of since no perversity is noticed from the impugned order. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp2356-2009