mp -1- wp8582_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8582 OF 2010 Mohd. Hanif Khadir Patil and others .. Petitioners Versus Shri Mausddeo Trust, Bastwad Masjid and others .. Respondents Mr. P. M. Arjunwadkar for Petitioners. Mr. Amit Borkar for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2011 P.C. : By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 30th August 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners for framing additional issue came to be rejected. 2. Shri Arjunwadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since by way of additional written statement, the issue of deemed tenancy had become necessary, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He submits that by denial to frame the issue, the learned Judge has grossly erred. Shri Borkar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the contrary, submits that the Suit of the respondent-plaintiff is for the possession and mense profits and is filed in the year 1996. It is submitted that the application in mp -2- wp8582_10 question was nothing else but an attempt to protract the proceedings and to deprive the petitioners of getting the decree at the earliest opportunity. 3. The jurisdiction under Order 14, Rule 5 is the discretionary jurisdiction. The learned Judge has given sound and cogent reasons while rejecting the application. It is stated that the learned Judge has found that though the written statement was filed on 21.03.1996, no explanation was given as to why they had not raised plea for deemed tenancy. It has been further found that there is no foundation also in the pleadings which would require framing of an issue as sought to be framed. 4. The scope of interference under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Unless it is found that the discretionary power exercised by the Trial Court has been exercised in perverse manner, it will not be permissible for this court to interfere with the same. No perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order to warrant interference. Hence rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J)