1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 4761 of 2011. M/s A.K. Technochem Engineers & Consultant Vs. Yogesh Pramod Thanvi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri H.N. Potbhare, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 27 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for framing an additional issue on limitation. Since the petitioner/defendant had pleaded in the written statement that the suit was barred by limitation and the issue in regard to limitation was not framed, the petitioner applied for framing of an additional issue. Since the matter was at the stage of cross- examination of the plaintiff's witnesses and since the court had framed an issue in regard to the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the amount from the defendant, the trial court observed that it was not necessary to specifically frame the issue of limitation as the said issue was impliedly incuded in issue no. 4 which related to the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the amount from the defendant. It appears from the impugned order dated 8.7.2011 that the trial court has put the parties to notice that the 4th issue framed in the suit also includes the issue of limitation and the parties can as well tender evidence on 2 that issue. It cannot be said that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for framing of an additional issue. Hence, in the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan