(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2492 OF 2011 Mandabai w/o. Ananda Sonone, Aged : 56 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Petitioners R/o. Dudha, (Original defendant Taluka & District : Buldhana, nos.2, 4 and 5 and 2 others. respectively) versus Banabai w/o. Ramrao Sakhale, .. Respondents Aged : 61 years, (Nos.1 to 3 - Occupation : Agriculture, Original plaintiffs R/o. Lehakhedi, & Taluka : Sillod, Nos.4 and 5 - District : Aurangabad, Original defendant and 4 others. nos.1 and 3) ....................... Mr. Vinayak M. Kagne, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 31ST MARCH 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.M. Kagne, for the petitioners / original defendant nos.2, 4 and 5. 2. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside order dated 25-2-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhokardan, in Regular Civil Suit No. 140/2005, on Exhibit 37, and for relief that Exhibit 39 be allowed in its totality. 3. The respondents / plaintiffs had filed application Exhibit 37 seeking to strike out Issue No.1 and to recast Issue Nos.3 and 4 as a single issue. The trial court has allowed application Exhibit 37. 4. The petitioners had filed application Exhibit 39 for rejection of the application of the respondents / plaintiffs for recasting of issues and also praying for framing of issues as mentioned therein. The trial court has allowed application Exhibit 39 partly and framed the issue on limitation only. Other issues as sought therein are not framed. Both the applications are disposed of by the trial court by a common order. (3) 5. Issue as recast on 25-2-2011 show that though while recasting Issue No.2, burden appears to have been placed upon defendant nos.2, 4 and 5, still because of Issue No.1, initial burden upon plaintiff is not diluted. Therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners in any way. Moreover, the issue of limitation is also framed. 6. The other contention is, in Issue No.3 as originally cast, the question of sale for legal necessity was mentioned. Perusal of that Issue No.3, as framed at Exhibit 23, reveals that burden was upon defendant no.4 i.e. present petitioner no.2 to show that defendant no.3 sold the suit land for legal necessity. Plaintiff has not contended that sale was not for legal necessity. 7. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. No prejudice is caused to the present petitioners. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2492