IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 818 OF 2011 BHIKU KHOLKAR, ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. ISSAC FERNANDES., ... Respondent Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 22nd December, 2011 P.C. Heard Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The above petition challenges an order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for framing additional issues with regard to the claim of the petitioner that he is a tenant of the suit property as well as his claim that he is a mundcar of the dwelling house existing therein came to be rejected. 3. The suit filed by the respondent is inter-alia for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from commencing, starting or carrying on any construction in the suit property or any part thereof or interfering with the same in any manner and also for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to demolish the suit construction of the rooms admeasuring an area of 72.98 square metres thereby encroaching in the suit property bearing survey No.198/1 and further relief is sought for mesne profit. 4. The petitioner has filed his written statement disputing the claim put forward by the respondent. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge has framed the issues which are transcribed at para 3 of the impugned order. By the present application, the petitioner is claiming that an additional issue be framed with regard to the claim of tenancy and an issue of mundkarship. The learned Judge has found that the suit structure is illegal structure and the case of the respondent is that the suit structure is very close to his mundkarial house in the property which is surveyed under No. 198/13. The learned Judge also noted that the suit was filed in the year 1998 and the present application for additional issue came to be filed in January, 2011. The learned Judge also found that the issue of tenancy cannot be framed as there was no material on that count to frame such issue. 5. After perusing the records and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find that the learned Judge was justified not to frame the issue at this stage on the basis of material on record. There is no case made out by the petitioner for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at this stage. But however liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in any appeal in case any adverse judgment is passed against the petitioner at the time of the final disposal of the suit. 6. It is well settled that the issues are to be framed on the basis of the pleadings and documents on record. On the basis of such material on record, the additional issue sought to be framed does not arise but however it is always open to the Court to frame additional issue under Order 14 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code in case such situation arises during the pendency of the suit in case such material is available on record. 7. Subject to the above, I find no case is made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned order. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. at*