(1) WP. 3056.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3056 OF 2010 Manik S/o Bhagwan Bhosale died through LRs. and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Ramkisan S/o Sambhaji Gore .. Respondent Mr. S.T. Ghute, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel. The petitioners are original plaintiffs. They filed suit for specific performance of agreement, alleging that the respondent executed agreement for re-conveyance of the suit land. They asserted that the respondent (defendant) executed such agreement dated 20.4.1982 but lateron did not comply with the terms of the agreement. 2] The respondent filed copy of the agreement dated 20.4.1982 and submitted that the petitioners (plaintiffs) got prepared a fabricated kararnama by (2) WP. 3056.2010 adding terms recording the re-conveyance of the land in question. In other words, the respondent alleged that the kararnama filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners) was not the same as per the terms which were agreeing and that there was interpolation of certain additional terms. The petitioners' contention before the trial Court was that burden of proof regarding execution of the kararnama dated 20.4.1982 shall be placed on the defendant instead of them. They submitted application for re-casting of issue nos.1 and 2. The trial Court rejected their application. It is argued that in view of admission of the respondent (defendant) the burden shifts on him to prove that there was interpolation and the terms of the agreement were changed by the petitioners. I do not agree. The respondent did not gave any un-qualified admission regarding execution of the agreement (kararnama) in question. The admission in the written statement is explained and qualified by saying that the relevant terms were interpolated by the petitioners and for such purpose a copy available with the respondent was also placed on record in order to demonstrate as to how part of the agreement was subsequently interpolated/ fabricated by making some additions. The petitioners being plaintiffs, are required to prove the relevant issues and burden of proof, cannot be placed on the respondent only because of part of the admission stated in the written statement. Needless to say the (3) WP. 3056.2010 impugned order does not call for any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp