1 wp2901.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2901 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. P.S. Dighe holding for Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011 Heard counsel for petitioner-defendant. In the light of the pleadings, the trial Court initially framed the issue casting burden upon the respondent-plaintiff to prove his possession and also to show that same was referable to his title. After evidence of plaintiff came to be recorded, as the plaintiff admitted possession of the petitioner- defendant and claimed encroachment, the issue was modified and burden was placed upon respondent- plaintiff to prove his title. The petitioner then sought restoration of issue as originally framed with contention that that issue was framed correctly in the light of the pleadings. By the impugned order, trial Court has rejected that prayer. 2 wp2901.11 2. Trial Court has correctly applied its mind, all relevant aspects are looked into and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, with liberty to petitioner to challenge that order after the suit is finally decided if occasion therefor arises. Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp 2901.11