Bombay High Court Shivaji Laxman Palaskar And Others vs Kamal Raosaheb Shipalkar And Others on 1 November, 2018 *1* 905wp12117o18 (Reportable) BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12117 OF 2018 1 Shivaji Laxman Palaskar, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Agri. 2 Sau.Suman Shivaji Palaskar, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Agri. 3 Jagannath Shivaji Palaskar, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agri. All above R/o Palve (Bk.), Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1 Sau.Kamal Raosaheb Shipalkar, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Kautha, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. 2 Paraji Raosaheb Palaskar, Age : 66 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Palve (Bk.), Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar. 3 Ananda Raosaheb Palaskar, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Palve (Bk.), Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar. 4 Balasaheb Raosaheb Palaskar, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Palve (Bk.), Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar. ::: Uploaded on 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on 04/11/2018 00:55:04 ::: *2* 905wp12117o18 5 Nirmala Shamrao Navale, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Koregaon, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. 6 Bharti Jaysing Sonwane, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Niri, Tal.Shirur, District Pune. 7 Saraswati Bapurao Palaskar, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Palve (Bk.), Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar. 8 Bapurao Bhaurao Palaskar, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Palve (Bk.), Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar. 9 Arjun Bhimaji Apte, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agri, R/o Palve (Bk.), Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar. (Respondent Nos.2 to 9 deleted as per order passed today) ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri S.P.Salgar, Advocate h/f Shri N.V.Gaware, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri A.K.Gawali, Advocate for Respondent No.1/ Original Plaintiff. ... DATE : 01st November, 2018 Oral Judgment : ::: Uploaded on 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on 04/11/2018 00:55:04 ::: *3* 905wp12117o18 1 The learned Advocate for the Petitioners seeks leave to delete the non contesting Respondent Nos.2 to 9, who are the original Defendants in RCS No.273/2013 and are not interested in the dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1/ original Plaintiff. Leave to delete the said Respondents is granted at the risk of the Petitioners. Deletion be carried out forthwith. 2 RULE. 3 Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 4 The Petitioners are the original Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in RCS No.273/2013. They have filed a common written statement. After the issues were cast on 25.09.2018, there was a recasting of issues on 15.10.2018. Pursuant thereto, the Plaintiff preferred the application Exhibit 80 seeking a direction from the Trial Court under Order 18 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the Petitioners/ Defendants to commence the recording of their evidence before the Plaintiff steps into the witness box. The application Exhibit 80 has been allowed by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 22.10.2018 and by invoking it's powers under Order 18 Rule 1, has directed the Petitioners/ Defendants to lead evidence first by concluding that the Defendants will have a right to begin. 5 I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned ::: Uploaded on 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on 04/11/2018 00:55:04 ::: *4* 905wp12117o18 Advocates for the respective sides. 6 The learned Advocate for th