1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5519/2010 Shaligram Ganeshlal Jaiswal and others -vs- Sau.Urmila Ramprakash Khatri and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 2010. Heard Advocate Shri Saboo for petitioners- defendants and Advocate Shri Mohta for respondents No.1 to 4-caveators. Advocate Shri Saboo states that initially issues were framed on 31/12/2002 and issue No.9 there specifically takes care of objection to jurisdiction of Civil Court raised by petitioners-defendants. Issues were recast on 13/08/2010 vide Exhibit-44 and while recasting the issue of jurisdiction is ignored. Hence, immediately on next date i.e. 07/09/2010 application was moved to frame that issue also. It has been rejected on very same day by observing that plaintiff has closed his arguments. Advocate Shri Mohta points out that issue No.1 of issues as framed on 13/08/2010 impliedly takes care of the jurisdiction angle also. He further states that express undertaking has been given by petitioners before the Trial Court to demolish the structure, if respondents proved their 2 title to the property in dispute. Hence, according to learned counsel, question of jurisdiction does not arise. After hearing respective counsel, it is apparent that reason put forth by Advocate Shri Mohta may be a good ground to answer the issue on merits. It cannot suffice to reject the prayer for framing of issue which was earlier framed and later on deleted inadvertently. Advocate Shri Saboo has specifically stated that there is no question of leading any evidence, even if, issue of jurisdiction is framed, as it is question of law only. Advocate Shri Mohta states that he is not aware whether respondents have on 07/09/2010 addressed Trial Court on the question of jurisdiction also. He states that if the issue is directed to be framed, the opportunity to address Trial Court on that issue should be kept open to respondents. In these circumstances, I find that impugned order does not look into all these facts and reason given for rejecting prayer of petitioner is irrelevant. Said order dated 07/09/2010 passed below Exhibit-200 is therefore quashed and set aside. Additional issue as sought for in Exhibit-200 is directed to be framed. Trial Court will extend opportunity of hearing to respondents on said issue and thereafter shall hear the arguments of present petitioners-defendants in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Khunte