wp5458.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5458 OF 2011 Vishnu Bhikaji Wackchoure and others ...Petitioners Versus The Tahsildar Akole and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.K. Shinde, advocate for the petitioners Mr. V.G. Shelke, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ..... CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 26TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The petitioners are original plaintiffs, who have filed a Suit for declaration and injunction. The court framed the issues and thereafter the matter is ripe for evidence. The plaintiffs moved an application at Exh.58 for framing additional issues. The Trial court has rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have filed the instant writ petition. 2 Shri. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the facts affirmed by one party and denied by the other give rise to the issue. In such circumstances, when the plaintiffs have pleaded in para 4 of the plaint about legality of the notice, then the issue in that regard wp5458.11 -2- should have been framed. The court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 3 With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the pleadings and the impugned order. The plaintiffs have nowhere pleaded nor sought any relief for declaration regarding the notice issued by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The court while rejecting application for framing of additional issues has observed this aspect. As such, the petitioners have not claimed any declaration or relief in respect of the said notice. Then in such circumstances, the court was justified in not entertaining the application. Even otherwise, the court has observed that the validity of the notice also can be decided in general while deciding the other issues. 4 In view of the aforesaid facts, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the trial court. As such, the writ petition is dismissed. However, with no order as to costs. (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) rlj/