IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2009 ADMINISTRATOR OF COMMUNIDADE ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. MOHAN PHADTE GAONKAR AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Ms. F. M. Mesquita, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 13th April, 2009 P.C.:- Heard. This Writ Petition is by Defendant No.3 in Civil Suit No.75/2006 and is directed against Order dated 2-3-2009 by which Issue No.9 has been re-framed. The claim of the Plaintiffs is that they are the co-owners of the suit property. The plea taken by Defendant No.1 is that the suit property belongs to the Communidade of Aldona, and, in the light of the plea taken by Defendant No.1, that Issue No.9 was framed. The learned trial Court by Order dated 27-1-2009 had dismissed an application for framing additional issue and it is the contention of the Petitioner/Defendant No.3 that in view of Order dated 27-1-2009, the matter should not have been re-opened by Order dated 2-3-2009, and, Ms. F. Mesquita, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has placed reliance on the decision in the case of N. Nanda Ghosh and others v. Smt. Alo Rani Ghosh and others(AIR 2000 Calcutta 89). Reliance has also been placed on Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector and another((2005) 7 SCC 190), particularly para 27 thereof to support her contention. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the application for modification of Issue No.9 was filed with a view to delay the trial suit. It is also submitted that evidence has already been recorded in the suit. Initially, the onus to prove Issue No.9 was cast on Defendant No.1 and now it is seen that it is also cast on Defendant No.3. It is nowhere stated that in the light of the re-casting of the said Issue, evidence led on behalf of the parties is required to be re-opened. Considering the claim of the Plaintiffs vis-a-vis the claim of Respondent No.1, both the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are bound to prove their respective claims. In substance, the onus to prove that the property belongs to the Communidade remains on Respondent No.1. The Communidade is also a party to the suit. No prejudice is being caused to Defendant No.3 by re-casting the issue and considering that, in my view, this is not a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction in the light of what has been stated by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others((2003) 6 SCC 675). Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.