FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders WRIT PETITION NO. 8678 OF 2011 ARVIND PUNDLIK DHAMANE VERSUS WAHED KHAN SHAHANOOR KHAN AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Vakil Laharimanohar D. ... CORAM : S V GANGAPURWALA, J. Dated: November 21, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. The petitioner is the original defendant No.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction and so also by way of an amendment has also sought relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed. Initially Court framed issues on 8.7.2004. Thereafter, the court had re-casted the issues by order dated 22.9.2011. Said order is assailed in the present petition. 2. Shri Vakil learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, issue No.6 which is recasted is not in consonance with the law of pleadings. The plaintiff has to prove his possession over the suit property and burden is not upon the defendant to prove the same. In this view, the court could not have recast the issue No.6. By recasting the issue No.6 the burden is now clamped on the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that impugned order is erroneous and deserves to be quashed. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders 3. Issues are to be framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Issue nos. 1 and 2 casts burden on the plaintiff to prove his ownership over the suit property. Present petitioner has come with a specific case that the petitioner has purchased part of the suit property by registered saledeed and claims to be in possession. It is for the petitioner to establish the same. Issues are framed for proper disposal of the case so that the parties know the case which they have to meet out and the matter in the controversy. 4. There is no error of jurisdiction committed by the Court while passing the impugned order. As such, impugned order needs no interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( S V GANGAPURWALA, J. ) aaa/- ...