(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1345 OF 2010 1. Lala s/o. Ganpati Veer, Age : 72 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Umapur, Taluka : Georai, District : Beed. 2. Bansi s/o. Ganpati Veer, Age : 67 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above. 3. Dadasaheb s/o. Ramchandra Veer, Age : 37 years, Occupation & R/o. as above. 4. Mahadeo s/o. Ramchandra Veer, Age : 37 years, Occupation & R/o. as above. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Ambadas s/o. Kakasaheb Aher, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Umapur, Taluka : Georai, District : Beed. (2) 2. Devidas s/o. Kakasaheb Aher, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Umapur, Taluka : Georai, District : Beed. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.A.G. Qureshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Respondent nos.1 and 2 served (Absent) ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Qureshi, for the petitioners / plaintiffs. 2. Nobody appears for the respondents though they are served with notice informing them that the petition is likely to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. (3) 4. Adv. Qureshi, for the petitioners / plaintiffs points out that reference to Consolidation Scheme and about defects therein in plaint was only for the purposes of narration and no relief in relation thereto is claimed in the suit. He also states that appropriate proceedings have been filed before competent authority in accordance with law for redressal of the grievance. According to him, inspite of specific reply disclosing all these aspects, the trial court has erroneously allowed application at Exhibit 24 filed by the respondents. 5. Perusal of the plaint shows that the petitioners have not claimed any relief in relation to Consolidation Scheme. Their reply opposing prayer at Exhibit 24 also shows same state of affairs. It is, therefore, obvious that it was not necessary for the trial court to frame any issue in relation to Section 36A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Hence the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-12-2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Georai, below Exhibit 24 in Regular Civil Suit No. 276/2009, is quashed and set aside. (4) 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1345