1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7038 OF 2009 Vishwanath s/o Dhondiba Davne .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. P.M. Yelnoorkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for the State. Mrs. V.R. Raut holding for Mr. B.L. Sagar, advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Application tendered by the plaintiff during continuance of the suit at exh. 105 in Regular Civil Suit no. 20/2007 has been rejected by the trial court in view of order passed on 23-9-2009. Petitioner original plaintiff presented suit claiming declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. Defendant has raised defence that the property has been partitioned between father and the son and he has purchased the same from son of the plaintiff. 2 Trial court framed additional issues considering the defence raised by 2 the contesting defendant. An application came to be moved by plaintiff requesting the court to direct the defendant to lead evidence to substantiate his defence. Application tendered by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendant to lead evidence first before opening of evidence by plaintiff has been rejected by the trial court. 3 I have perused the application as well as the impugned order. Burden is on the plaintiff to establish ownership as well as possession over the suit property, in order to secure the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction. Even otherwise, direction as prayed for by the plaintiff cannot be issued. No interference is called for in the petition at interlocutory stage in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. R & P be remitted to the trial court. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp7038.09.odt