1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4265 OF 2009 Bapu Krishna Koli ...Petitioner vs. Ashok Dattatraya Patil ...Respondent Ms Deepti Pawar h/f Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioner None for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 20, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the original defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. A money suit has been filed by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,000/-. The issues were framed on 5th February 1980. Additional issues nos.3 to 5 were framed on 5th November 1982. The additional issues nos. 3 to 5 read thus : 3 Is this suit dependent upon the finding on the application filed by the defendant in the Civil Court at Panhala under section 24 of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1976 ? 4 If the finding would be in the affirmative, that the defendant is a marginal farmer, then whether the suit loan is extinguished under the said Act ? 5 Is the suit claim of the plaintiff on his failure to make such an application under the said Act, tenable ? 2 2 An application was made by the petitioner for framing additional issues. The first additional issue sought to be framed was whether the petitioner proves that he was a farmer/worker as described in section 2(f) and 2(h) of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act,1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)? The second suggested issue was whether the petitioner is a member of a scheduled caste. By the impugned order, prayer made by the petitioner was rejected and the learned Judge proceeded to delete the three additional issues framed on 5th November 1982. The order of deletion was passed on the basis of the Judgment and Order dated 6th September 2007 passed by the Civil Court on application under section 24(1) of the said Act made by the petitioner. By the said order, the application made by the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, the learned Judge was of the view that the additional issues suggested by the petitioner and the additional issues framed under order dated 5th November 1982 were not necessary. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that against the rejection of the application under section 24(1) of the said Act, the petitioner has preferred a Civil Appeal No.77 of 2007 in the District court and the said Appeal is pending as of today. She submitted that the order dated 6th September 2007 has not attained finality. The learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the order dated 6th September 2007 in which a finding has been already recorded that the petitioner being a teacher, he does not fall under the definition of debtor as contemplated by the said Act. He stated that the respondent is not aware about the pendency of any such appeal. 3 4 I have considered the submissions. The statement made by the petitioner that Appeal no.77 of 2007 is pending, is accepted. In view of pendency of the said appeal, the issue whether the petitioner is a debtor has not been finally decided in the proceeding under the said Act. Perusal of the additional issue no.3 framed on 5th November 1982 shows that the same sufficiently takes care of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the written statement. Though additional issues as suggested by the petitioner need not be framed, in view of the pendency of the appeal, the aforesaid additional issue no.3 will have to be restored. 5 Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing following order : i) Impugned order is modified. Additional issue no.3 framed under order dated 5th November 1982 is restored. ii)All contentions of the parties on merits of the pending appeal are kept open. iii)Hearing of the said Civil Appeal no.77 of 2007 is expedited. The District Court is directed to conclude the hearing of the appeal by the end of August 2010. iv)Hearing of the suit is expedited. The hearing shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st December 2010. v) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms. JUDGE 4