1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8807 0F 2009 *** Harnapp @ Pintu Balaji Raut Versus Venkatro Ramro Dadhale and others *** 1. This petition is filed by the original defendant No.5 in Regular Civil Suit NO.152 of 2006. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me to the application filed by the present petitioner/ defendant No.5 Annexure-C. He read para 1. According to him, in this application, two issues were sought to be additionally framed by the trial Court. Issue No.1, according to the present petitioner, pertains to the legality of the sale deed in view of the provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 bearing No.45 and 46. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Laxmibai W/do of Harnapp was a restricted owner of the property under the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. From Laxmibai, plaintiff has obtained the sale deed of the suit property and, therefore, issue No.1 was sought to be framed and referred to the tenancy authorities under the Act. Issue No.2 sought by the present 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. petitioner was pertaining to the ownership and possession of the suit property. On behalf of the plaintiff, reply is filed – Annexure-D. In the reply, it has been stated that the suit is simplicitor for perpetual injunction. The Plaintiff has filed affidavit i.e. examination in chief. It is further stated that, on behalf of the defendants, several applications have been filed just to protract the hearing of the suit. It is also stated in this reply that contention raised in the application is not raised in the written statement filed. Since there is no contention or pleadings raised in the written statement (Annexure-B, page 14), there is no question of framing of the issue. In the application itself, defendant has contended that he is tenant in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, therefore, there is no question of framing an issue pertaining to alleged tenancy of the defendant and reference thereof to the tenancy authorities. 2. Trial Court, while passing the order impugned, has made reference to the written statement and observed that there is no such plea raised in the written statement and, therefore, the trial Court has rejected the 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. prayers made by the present petitioner, however, framed additional issue pertaining to title of the plaintiff over the suit property. 3. Issues are to be settled in the suit in view of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly concedes that such plea, as raised in this application, is not raised in the written statement. Suffice it to say that there is absence of such pleading in the written statement. Refusal by the Court, on this ground, to frame additional issues cannot be said to be contrary to Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. 4. Writ petition stands dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:25/01/2010. ans/8807