wp6070.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.6070/2011 Sushama Shyam Mahodaya -vs- Surendra Kumar Narayandas Jawandiya ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri H. D. Dangre, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 09.12.2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application filed by the petitioner to frame issues. The petitioner had challenged the prayer of the respondent to join him as a legal representative of deceased Smt. Savitarani. Since the respondent claimed to be a legal representative and the petitioner disputed that fact, an enquiry was contemplated. The Trial Court decided to permit the parties to tender evidence on the question involved. When the matter was at the stage of evidence, the petitioner filed an application for framing the issues. According to the petitioner, the proposed issues were – (1) Whether the applicant (present respondent) proved the existence of the custom? (2) Whether the applicant (present respondent) proved that such custom was contrary to law? (3) Whether the applicant (present respondent) proved that Godnama Lekh dated 14/12/2001 is a legally valid document? The Trial court by the impugned order dated 16/09/2011 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. wp6070.11.odt 2/3 The Trial Court, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, held that the only question which the Court was required to consider was whether the respondent could be permitted to be brought on record as a legal representative of the deceased. The Court held that it was not necessary to frame the issues proposed by the petitioner in this case. The Court observed in paras – 7 and 9 of the impugned order that the proceedings were in respect of determination of the question as to whether the present respondent was a legal representative of the deceased. In case the petitioner desired to challenge the adoption deed, he could have done so by filing independent proceedings but the same could not have been challenged in the present enquiry. All the parties were aware of the question which was to be determined by the Court and were also aware that the evidence was required to be tendered on that issue. In such circumstances, it was not necessary to frame the issues, specially the issues which were proposed by the petitioner. As the parties as well as the Court were clearly aware of the issue/question involved in the case as to whether the respondent could be permitted to be brought on record as the legal heir of the deceased, the Trial Court committed no error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE wp6070.11.odt 3/3 KHUNTE