1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10498 OF 2010 Dagdu Bhagwat Wani ...Petitioner Versus Suleman Ibrahim Shaikh and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. N.C. Gardu, advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.R. Bhavar, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court on 6.8.2010 has framed the issue that, “Whether the defendants are entitle for relief of permanent injunction as alleged in the counter claim?” 2 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since the additional issue was framed by the trial court, it was incumbent upon the respondents to reply the same and therefore, the petitioner produced on record the certified copy of the order, which shows that in earlier round of litigation the defendant did file application for injunction 2 and the said application was dismissed in default. 3 Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that this is second round of litigation. The petitioner is trying to prolong the hearing and the decision of the suit, which is pending before the leaned Joint C.J.J.D. Kopargaon. 4 In the above circumstances, in my view, as contended by the counsel for the parties, since the recording of evidence is over and now the matter is kept for argument, it would not be proper for this Court to direct the exhibit the said document. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to advance his arguments on the basis of the said document, which is already produced on record. Order accordingly. 3 Needless to mention that the trial court will consider the effect of the said document on its own merits without influenced by any of the observations made in this order. 4 With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. *****