1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1707/2009 (Narayan H. Dhage Vs. Smt. Shantabai H. Dhage & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ambilwade, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4 to 7. Mr. S.K. Hatwar, Advocate, for respondent nos. 8 and 9. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 3 , 2009 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order dated 2/2/2009 passed by the trial Court rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for recasting the issues. On a consideration of the same, it is clear that the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, did not commit any error in passing the impugned order dated 2/2/2009. The Court rightly held that the necessary issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the issues which were sough to be incorporated at the behest of the petitioner, were not involved in the case and there were no material pleadings on some of the issues which were sought to be recasted by the application dated 2/2/2009. The Court observed that it was not necessary to allow the application merely because the plaintiff had not objected to same. From a perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the trial Court had framed the relevant issues and the 2 issues similar to one which are sought to be recasted were already framed by the trial Court on 13/7/2006. The application was rightly rejected by the trial Court as it is clear from the pleadings that the interest of the plaintiff and the petitioner was same and, therefore, in such circumstances, the plaintiff avoided to object to the application. Since the order passed by the trial Court on 2/2/2009 rejecting to recast the issue, is just and proper, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Even from the amended pleadings, the issues which are sought to be recasted by the application of the petitioner, cannot be framed as the issues similar to the issues which are sought to be framed, are already framed by the Court. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP