1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1621/2010 ( Baburao @ Babu S/o Dayaram Durge & others -: versus :- Vitthal S/o Dayaram Durge & another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Ms Bharadwaj, Adv. for petitioners. Shri A.S. Kilor, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 16, 2010. Heard Adv. Ms Bharadwaj for petitioner/plaintiff and Adv. Shri Kilor for respondent no.1/defendant no.1. The respondent no.2 before this Court is defendant no.2. Though he is served, he is not appearing. Adv. Ms Bharadwaj points out that in plaint there is direct challenge to sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2. The Trial court has not framed any issue on that challenge and only issues framed are regarding the share of plaintiff in suit premises and his entitlement to relief as claimed. She, therefore, contends that issue as sought for in paragraph no.2 of application for re-framing the issues needs to be granted. Adv. Shri Kilor is right in contending that the controversy as raised can be gone into in the light of issues 1 and 2 as framed. As there is specific challenge to sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2, it is necessary to frame the issue in that respect. The impugned 2 order is therefore, quashed and set aside. Trial court to frame issue 'whether the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is legal and binding on plaintiff ?' Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.