1 C.R.A.254.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2011 Tukaram S/o Dashrath Hiwre. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Sayyed Zahurul-Haqu Sayyed Asadullah Biyanbani and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.A.D.Kasliwal,Advocate for Applicant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr.Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for applicant would submit that so far issue in respect of tenancy is concerned, which was already averred in the written statement and documents are placed on record, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the issue is framed 2 C.R.A.254.11 and adjudicated. 3. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submits that the applicant in his written statement has specifically raised plea of ‘protected tenant’ and therefore the Tribunal should have allowed the application filed by the applicant for framing additional issue. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has already made so many observations thereby taking a view that applicant cannot said to be protected tenant, since concept of tenancy is not applicable to to an Inam lands. . Learned counsel further submits that another prayer of the applicant to delete para No. 12 from the written statement should have been allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the applicant Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed. 4. I have given due consideration to the 3 C.R.A.254.11 submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. It is not necessary to reproduce and reiterate the reasons, which are assigned by the Tribunal in para No. 10 to 18. Suffice it to say that, attempt of the applicant to file an application was made at belated stage praying relief for framing additional issue and also for deletion of para No. 12 from the Written Statement, at the stage when evidence of the plaintiff was completed. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the reported judgment in the case of Vidyabai and others versus Padmalatha and another (2009(4)Mh.L.J.30(SC) and has taken a reasonable and possible view. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass such orders, there is no any jurisdictional error as such. That apart, it will be open for the applicant to argue both the points at the time of final hearing. However, any indulgence at this stage would only protract the trial. The Tribunal has observed in the impugned judgment that delayed tactics are being adopted by the applicant and said observations of the 4 C.R.A.254.11 Tribunal cannot be brushed aside so easily. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the Civil Revision Application and same stands rejected. . However, it will be open for the applicants to argue both the points at the time of final hearing of the suit. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK