dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2009 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2009 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2009 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.A.R.Mishra for the Petitioners. Mr.Ramprakash Pandey for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 18th October, 2008. : 18th October, 2008. : 18th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. Though there is a clear pleading in the objection filed by the obstructionist that the premises falls withinthe ambit of slum notification, yet court refused to frame that issue. While framing the issue i.e. Whether obstructionist proves that his premises is situated in Ratansi Jaykarn Pande Chawl? Having once framed this issue, whether this particular chawl falls within the slum area or not, that always ( 2 ) goes to the root of the matter. As there is a clear pleadign and there is a clear denial to thesame pleading that itselfmeans the issue needs to be considered. The issue is whether the premises falls within the slum is a question of fact and law. In view of this, I am inclined to frame that additional issue i.e. "Whether obstructionist proves that the suit premises is situated in the area declared as a slum?". In view of this, the petition is partly allowed. The Court to proceed accordingly as expeditiously as possible. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]