IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 571 OF 2008 SMT. RUKMINI PANDURANG NAIK ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. UDAY SRINIVAS VAIDYA ... Respondent Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 18th September, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is defendant in R.C.S. No.117/2001/B. By the impugned Order dated 20-6-2008, the learned trial Court has declined to frame issues as regards the claim of the defendant as a mundkar, and as well as a tenant. The learned trial Court has held that the framing of the said issues was not necessary because all that the plaintiff had sought in the suit was the demolition of extension done to the dwelling house of the defendant and the suit was bound to succeed or fail on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. In coming to that conclusion, the learned trial Court has referred to the Judgments of this Court in the case of Shantaram Fottu Dessai v. Drupadi Arjun Shetkar(2003(1) GLT 46) as well as Uttam Shanma Deshmukh v. Yamunabai Chandrabhan Bhoyar(1998(4) Bom. C. R. 441). Considering the claim of the plaintiff made in the suit, the impugned Order cannot be faulted. This is not a case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. In case the defendant wishes that the suit is to be stayed he is always free to file an application before the trial Court and the trial Court is bound to decide such application on its own merits and in accordance with law. Petition dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.