1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1672 OF 2010 Rohini W/o Shantaram Waghchaure and others ... PETITIONERS V E R S U S Ramdas S/o Namdeo Sadgir ... RESPONDENT ... Mr.L.V.Sangit , Advocate for Petitioners. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 28TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel. 2] The petitioners filed an application for framing additional issue. The said application came to be rejected. It appears that three additional issues, which petitioners proposed to be framed, pertaining to the objections regarding admissibility of evidence against the terms of documents, and absence of any resource in respect of rights left with the plaintiff, after his execution of the sale deed, dated 22nd February,2005. The third issue proposed is repetition of assertion made by the plaintiff itself. The learned counsel place reliance on the observation in the case Makhanlal Bangal Versus Manas Bhunia and others reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 652. There can not be two opinion that as observed by the Apex 2 Court in para No.19 of the Judgment, necessary issues are required to be framed in respect of material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Still, however, the issue regarding repetitive facts or mere objections regarding admissibility of the evidence, can be dealt with under the provisions of the Evidence Act and can not form subject matter of issue. The provision of Order 14 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the settlement of issues. No fault can be with impugned order and the rights of the petitioners are not trampled thereby. For, they may object recording of the evidence against the terms of the documents and necessary objections can be dealt with at the time of trial. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK 3