1 wp7987.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7987 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for respondent nos.2, 3 and 5. 1. Heard. The order impugned is one by which the application for framing issues is partly allowed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar. 2. Advocate Mr. Mantri states that there is specific defence that the respondent-plaintiff is not an agriculturist and for selling property of minors, permission of District Court was necessary. According to him as these defences are vital, the issues needed to be framed. 3. Advocate Mr. Deshpande for respondent-plaintiff points out that application seeking framing of those issues is also at the same time trying to put burden upon the 2 wp7987.10 respondent-plaintiff. He further states that in so far as sell of property of minors is concerned, absence of permission from the District Court or its effect, is a question of law and hence without framing said issue question can be gone into. 4. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that the defences are specifically raised and for proper trial the issues have to be framed to take care of the same. Hence, in this view of the matter following two issues are framed as additional issues :- (i) Whether the plaintiff is or is not an agriculturist ? (ii) Whether permission of District Court to sell property of minors was essential ? If yes, what is its effect? 5. These issues are thus framed in addition to issues at Exhibit-19/C as framed on 01.07.2002 and as modified by impugned order dated 11.03.2010. 6. At the request of parties, the proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 2011 are expedited and the trial Court is directed to decide the same at the earliest and in any case within a period of six months from the date of communication of order to it. 3 wp7987.10 7. Petition is partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 04.02.2011 gas/wp7987.10