ssp 1 LPA 186 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.186 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4516 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.247 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.186 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4516 OF 2011 Jaiwant Kedari Nikam .....Appellant versus Balasaheb Shankar Salokhe and Ors. ..... Respondent Mr.Chetan G. Patil, for the appellant. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 02 nd AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of the trial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is the original defendant in the suit and he preferred an application before the trial Court for framing additional issues, viz. The plaintiff has proved the ownership over the disputed property, as well as ssp 2 LPA 186 of 2011 right of the plaintiff to file suit. The learned Trial Court declined to frame additional issues. Against the order of the Trial Court, the petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the discretionary order of the Trial Court. Though, prima facie the appeal is not maintainable against the order of the learned Single Judge, as the learned Single Judge has exercised powers under 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the subordinate court. 2. Apart from the said fact, whether any additional issues are to be framed or not, is the aspect which is required to be decided by the trial court . At such an interlocutory stage, the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the pending proceedings before the trial court. We would not like to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in this appeal. However, in case the suit is decreed against the appellant and if he requires to file an appeal against the original decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it will be open to the appellant to raise all the points available including the points raised in this appeal, regarding not framing necessary issues if it arise out of pleadings. It is clarified that we are not expressing any opinion on merits of the issue. 3. In view of what is stated above, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ssp 3 LPA 186 of 2011 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application No. 247 of 2011 does not survive and it is dismissed accordingly. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )