1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 106, 107 AND 108 OF 2009. Union of India Through Central Public Works Department Represented by the Executive Engineer Shri Dinesh Kumar s/o Shri Ram Prasad aged 31 years, with his office at Nirman Bhavan, Bambolim, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Shri Domnic Issac major age, married, Contractor Proprietor of M/s. Premier Builders Engineers and Contractors r/o Krishna Kunj, Second Floor General Costa Road, Panaji, Goa for the purpose of service the above is the registered address of the parties. ... Respondents. Mr. Joseph Vaz, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the petitioner. CORAM :- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE :- 19 TH March, 2009 . ORAL ORDER : 1. All these three writ petitions were heard together for the purpose of admission. In all these three writ 2 petitions, the plaintiffs had moved an application for deletion of issue No.4 framed by the Trial Court upon submission made by the defendant in the said suit. 2. The contention of the petitioner/ plaintiff, is that this issue ought not to have been framed by the Court at all since the said issue has already been answered in a decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No.7, 8 and 9 of 2007. 3. The Trial Court while deciding the application has framed the issue no.4, which is framed as an additional issue because of the pleadings made by the parties. 4. The plaintiff feels aggrieved by the framing of an additional issue by the Court. 5. After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after having gone through the issue as framed by the learned Judge, it is apparent that the burden has been cast upon the defendant and not on the plaintiff and therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the said framing of issue. It is contended that the same question is already decided by High Court. If that 3 is so decided, the same can be brought to the notice of the learned Judge, who can decide the question whether decision of High Court operates as res judicata. If the learned Judge is convinced, he may very well answer the issue in that regard. Framing of such an issue, cannot be a reason to approach the High Court unnecessarily. The Courts are already overburdened with the petitions and particularly in this case, the petitioner should not have approached the High Court in view of the fact that no burden has been cast on the petitioner and the entire burden is cast on the defendant by issue No.4. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the writ petitions. They are dismissed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA