1 wp 6770.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6770 OF 2011 Kishor Bansi Patil .. Petitioner Versus Vishnu Kushal Borole Died and others .. Respondents Shri G. S. Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondents have filed suit U/Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession. The Court framed the issues. Thereafter evidence was led. After the evidence was led and the matter was fixed for arguments, the petitioner moved an application for framing additional issues. The additional issues sought to be framed revolve around the will. The Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the suit is filed U/Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the Court is not required to go into the aspects of the title and only the possession and the dispossession of the plaintiff without due process of law within a 2 wp 6770.11 period of six months prior to the filing of the suit is required to be seen. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition has been filed. 02. Shri Rane, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that going through the text of the plaint, it would be clear that the said suit could not have been filed as a suit U/Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Even the evidence was led on the will to prove the title. In such circumstances, the suit cannot be tried as a suit U/Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act and in such circumstances, the additional issues sought to be framed were necessary. The Court has also tried the suit as regular suit as issues are framed and evidence is led. 03. The suit is styled as suit U/Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court in its impugned order has also in no uncertain words expressed that the suit is U/Sec. 6 and the Court is only required to consider the previous possession of the plaintiff and the dispossession of the plaintiff without due process of law within a period of six months prior to the filing of the suit and no further aspect is required to be considered. 04. The case of the present petitioner before the Trial Court 3 wp 6770.11 was not that the suit cannot be tried as a suit U/Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act in view of the pleadings made and the reliefs claimed. In such circumstances, the arguments of Shri Rane, the learned counsel that as even the possession of movable property is claimed, so also the pleadings and the issues framed, the evidence led shows that the suit is not a suit U/Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be considered. Such an application is also not before the Trial Court. In such circumstances, no error has been committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application for framing an additional issues. 05. Shri Rane, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner may file an appropriate application before the Trial Court in this regard that the suit cannot be tried as suit U/Sec. 6. There is no impediment under the Statute for the petitioner to file any such application. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits and the further proceedings of the suit would depend upon the said application. The writ petition is dismissed, however, no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11