1 W.P. NO.5995/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5995 OF 2010 Laxmibai w/o Navnath Sarwade, Age 43 years, Occ. Agri. & Household, R/o Hingewadi, u/v Gomalwada, Tq. Shirur, District Beed, R/o Irrigation Colony. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Nandabai w/o Gorakh Mahadik, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri. & Household, R/o Hingewadi, u/v Gomalwada, Tq. Shirur, District Beed. 2. Kamalabai w/o Bhagwan Saste, Age 50 years, Occ. Agri. R/o Hingewada, u/v Gomalwadi, Tq. Shirur, District Beed. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.P. Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : 8th December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The order dated 15.12.2009, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirur (K) is subjected to challenge in the present 2 W.P. NO.5995/2010 petition. By that order, the application of the petitioner (original defendant No.1) to frame additional issues came to be rejected on the ground that so far as additional issue No.1 was concerned, the facts were admitted and so far as other three additional issues which were sought to be added, were already covered by the original issues as framed. 3. During the course of hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is willing to restrict his claim to the addition of additional issue No.1 alone and he is not pressing the other additional issues. The proposed additional issue No.1 reads as follows : "1. Does the deefnedant No.1 prove that Gangubai was owner of the suit lands as her "Streedhan"?" 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the property was owned by Gangubai as Streedhan, would have a bearing inasmuch as how the property has devolved upon her – whether as Streedhan or otherwise – is an aspect which would need to be considered for effectual disposal of the suit. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that Gangubai was the owner is in fact admitted by the respondents. He, however, fairly stated that, the respondents would not mind if the additional issues are restricted 3 W.P. NO.5995/2010 to the additional issue No.1 alone and if the examination of the respondents, which is already closed is not re-opened. 5. Considering the above, the impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioner shall be deemed to be allowed to the extent of addition of additional issue No.1 which reads as follows: "1. Does the deefnedant No.1 prove that Gangubai was owner of the suit lands as her "Streedhan"?" 6. The learned trial Judge shall add the aforementioned additional issue to the issues already framed. It is, however, clarified that since the evidence of the defendants is already closed, there will be no question of re-opening of that evidence. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. A.A. SAYED JUDGE