1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1637 of 2007 Madhukar & anr v. Eknath and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.G. Kavimandan, Adv for petitioners. Mr N.S. Badhe, Adv for respondents Coram : R.V. More, J. Dated : 25th February 2008 The petitioners who are original defendants no. 1 and 3 in Regular Civil Suit No. 84 of 2005 seek to challenge the order dated 12.3.2007 whereby their application at exhibit 57 for framing of additional issues regarding tenancy came to be rejected. The respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession against the petitioners/defendants. Defence of the petitioners is that there was oral partition in the year 1970 and thereafter the land which fell to the share of respondents was given on Thoka (lease) to them. The petitioners/defendants will have to first prove that there was oral partition in the year 1970 and then 2 and then only the question of oral Thoka, as alleged by them, will arise. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the Trial Court rightly rejected petitioners' application especially when there is nothing except bare allegation in the Written statement to fortify the alleged Thoka. Framing of additional issues, as claimed by the petitioners, will cause great prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs inasmuch as disposal of the suit will be delayed. In view of above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. Judge. Hsj