(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6600 OF 2009 Dagdu s/o. Bhimrao Kolpe. .. Petitioner (Original defendant no.5.) versus Mohd. Murtauza s/o. Mohd. Wahiuddin, .. Respondents died per L.Rs. : (No.1 - Original Rahimabee w/o. Murtauza Patel, etc., plaintiff, and & Others. Nos.2 to 5 - Original defendant Nos.1 to 4 ) .......................... Mr. Prashant Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.1B and 1C. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.2B, 2C and 2E. Respondent nos.2A and 2D served (Absent). .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 4th September 2009, passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Osmanabad, below Exhibit 224 in Regular Civil Suit No. 401/1987, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for framing additional issues. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24th February 2009 passed below Exhibit 199, thereby partly allowing the application filed by the original defendant nos.1B, 1C and 1E, for deleting the issues in respect of limitation and jurisdiction. 2. One of the issues, which is sought to be framed by the petitioner, is pertaining to ownership on the basis of tenancy. The said application is rejected. The learned Judge of the trial court has rejected the application on the ground that suit was filed in the year 1987 and the issues were framed in the year 1988. It has, therefore, been found that the application, which was filed after 21 years, was liable to be rejected. 3. In that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity with the approach adopted by the learned Judge of the trial court in refusing to entertain an application which is filed 21 years after the date on which issues were framed. (3) 4. No case is made out for interference with the impugned orders, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/6600wp