1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2010 Vitthal Raokishan Ukirde .. PETITIONER VERSUS T.K. Prabhakaran s/o Janardhan Nair .. RESPONDENT Mrs. P.V. Langhe, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.V. Adwant, Advocate for the respndent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Challenge raised in the writ petition is in respect of an interlocutory order passed by the trial court on 12-10-2009, on application below exh.56 in Regular Civil Suit no. 806/2004. 2 Petitioner is the original defendant. Respondent / original plaintiff instituted suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction. The suit was presented in the year 2004. The issues were framed by the trial court in the year 2004 and it is stated that recording of evidence has commenced in the matter. The petitioner / original defendant tendered an application 2 requesting the court to recast the issues, frame an additional issue so also the defendant / petitioner herein requested the court to de-exhibit the document placed on record at exh. 45 by the plaintiff. 3 Trial court rejected the application recording that there is no need to to frame additional issue. So far as request for de-exhibiting the document is concerned, it is contended by the defendant that while exhibiting the document, proper procedure has not been followed. It is contended that the document is not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. It would be open for the defendant to agitate the grievance before the trial court in respect of admissibility of the document as well as it would also be open for the defendant to contend that the document is not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence act and the trial court would look into the objections and record finding in that respect while dealing with the suit on its own merit. So far as framing of additional issue is concerned, I am of the opinion that the burden is heavy on the plaintiff to establish his case and issue no. 3 framed by the trial court will bring in its fold the issue as proposed by the defendant. At the late stage of the proceeding, it was not open for the defendant to extend the request for recasting the issues. Even otherwise, no interference needs to be caused in 3 the interlocutory order passed by the trial court during the pendency of the suit, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of merit hence stands rejected. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp62.10.odt