1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1346 OF 2010 JAYANT MOHNIRAJ WAGH ..PETITIONER V/S SAUREKHA MANOJ DAHALE AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri P.R.Nangare. Advocate for the petitioner. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH,J. Dated : 23.2.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2. This petition is by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned IV Joint Civil Judge J.D. Ahmednagar dated 5.1.2010 below Exhibit 81 in RCS No.183 of 2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants. Copy of the plaint is on record at Exhibit "A". House property is subject matter of the suit. The petitioner has sought a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants for obstructing their alleged peaceful possession over the suit property. 2 4. Defendants appeared and filed their written statement. It is on record at Exhibit "B". In paragraph No.4 of the written statement, a contention is raised that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the suit and that he is not a tenant of the suit property. In paragraph No.8 it has been pleaded that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court, in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Therefore, a request is made to reject the plaint. In paragraph No.17, it has been pleaded by defendants that the suit is not properly valued. According to defendants, market value of the suit property is Rs.4,20,000/- on which, court fee ought to have been paid by the plaintiff. 5. Defendants filed an application in the trial court on 8.2.2009 for additional issues; as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and whether the suit is properly valued. 6. Petitioner filed reply to the said application. Copy of the same is on record. According to the petitioner, framing of additional issues is not necessary. Oral evidence has been led by the parties and now the suit is for arguments. Order passed by the trial Court is said to be illegal. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considered the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has exercised the discretion under Order 3 XIV Rule 5 of CPC and to recast the issues. I am not recording any opinion on the merits of the issues. In my view, in view of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has justifiably framed the issues. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Femina Handloom Vs. M/s M.R.Verma [AIR 1993 Ker. 210]. It was a suit for recovery of the amount. I have considered the facts of the said case. In my view the facts are distinguishable and ratio of the said case has no application to the case on hand. 9. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. The trial Court shall decide the suit in accordance with the provisions of law and material brought on record by the parties. ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) ... akl