FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders WRIT PETITION NO.224/2010 GOKUL ANANDA WANI V/S RIKHABCHAND CHOTHMAL JAIN. 1. Present petitioner is defendant No.2 in Special Civil Suit No.31/2007. Copy of the plaint is on record Annexure ‘D’ (page 27). 2. From the prayers made in the plaint, it appears that decree is sought against defendant No.1, alone for specific performance and possession of suit property, of the agreement dated April 16, 2004. In alternate, further decree is sought for executing the document in view of the agreement dated 16.04.2004 by appointing a Court Commissioner. In case, this relief is also not possible, original plaintiff seeks refund of money i.e. Rs. 6,01,000/- and damages Rs.6,50,000/- with interest. 3. Written statement has been filed by the present petitioner/defendant No.2 annexure ‘E’. Defendant No.1 indisputably has also filed written statement. Annexure ‘F’ is copy of issues settled by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule on July 28, 2009. There after present petitioner/defendant No.2 filed an application under order 14 Rule 5 on August 13, 2009 seeking re- framing of the issues suggested by him. This application is rejected by the trial court holding that present FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders petitioner/defendant No.2 did not file counter claim. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if, counter claim is not filed by the present petitioner, he can seek such framing of issues. From paragraph No.4 of the written statement, it is appearing that present petitioner/defendant No.2 has also raised a grievance that he is only joined as party-defendant No.2 in the suit, however, no relief or decree is sought against him. Therefore, he has sought dismissal of the suit. 5. In my view, there is no case for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction. Order impugned is legal and proper. Writ Petition stands dismissed summarily without any order as to costs. 6. Petitioner is permitted to take steps in accordance with the provisions of law. ( S.B. DESHMUKH, J. ) * * * Dt :27/01/2010 aaa/224.10