1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6123 OF 2010 (DR. SHYAMKUMAR DAULATRAO PATIL & ANR...VS.. HIMATRAO SAKHARAM JADHAO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2011. Heard Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Washim on 15.10.2010 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for recasting the issue. The petitioners are the original defendants. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for a decree of damages to the tune of Rs.Ten Lacs. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 pushed the plaintiff on 13.04.2004 in front of his Dispensary, as a result of which the plaintiff had a fall. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 gave a stone blow to the left eye of the plaintiff and in view of the same, left eye of the plaintiff was completely damaged thereby causing great loss and injury to the plaintiff. The defendants denied the allegations made by the plaintiff in paragraph 1 of the plaint to the aforesaid effect. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court framed in all five issues. Issue No.1 reads thus : 2 “Whether plaintiff proves that due to assault by defendant no.1 he lost his left eye-sight and sustained injury to right eye-sight ?” The defendants sought for recasting this issue and wanted the Court to recast the issue as under : “Whether the plaintiff proves that on 13/4/2004 at about 3.45 p.m., due to assault by the defendant no.1, he lost his left eye sight and sustained injury to the right eye sight ?” The plaintiff opposed the application filed by the defendant for recasting the issues. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. The Court rightly held that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for damages on the alleged wrongful act of the defendant in assaulting the plaintiff. According to the trial Court, the first issue “Whether plaintiff proves that due to assault by defendant no.1 he lost his left eye-sight and sustained injury to right eye-sight?” squarely covers the controversy which was involved in the suit and it was not necessary or proper to frame / recast the issue as desired by the defendant. There is no error, whatsoever, much less a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the defendant for recasting the issues. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..