Shri Sitaram Anand Rajurkar And ORS v. Shri Dilip Madhavrao Ghule

1 CRA 279-15.doc-P-4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.279 OF 2015 Shri Sitaram Anand Rajurkar and Ors.

] ... Petitioners/ (Orig. Defendants)

Versus

Shri Dilip Madhavrao Ghule.

] ... Respondent/ (Orig. Plaintiff) Mr. S. C. Wakankar for Petitioners.

Mr. Jaydeep Deo for Respondent.

CORAM :- M. S. SONAK, J.

DATE :- JULY 15, 2015 P. C. :- 1.

Rule.

2.

With the consent of and at the request of learned Counsel for parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.

This Civil Revision Application challenges order dated 12/02/2015 made by the Small Causes Court, Pune, declining the framing of additional issue at the behest of the Petitioners-Defendants. 4.

The record indicates that a set of about 8 draft issues were proposed by the Respondent-Plaintiff on 10/10/2013. One of the issue proposed was as follows :-

2 CRA 279-15.doc-P-4 "Whether the Defendants prove that Plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property ?'

5.

However, the Small Causes Court did not frame the aforesaid issue. Accordingly, the Petitioners herein, who are the Defendants before the Small Causes Court, vide Exh.51, applied for framing of the aforesaid issue. The Respondent-Plaintiff, on 24/09/2014, recorded no objection to the framing of the said issue. The learned Small Causes Court, however, by the impugned order, has declined to frame the issue.

6.

The suit, as of now, is at the stage of framing of issues. From the pleadings of the parties, as also the aforesaid circumstances wherein the Respondent-Plaintiff had himself proposed the framing of the aforesaid issue, such issue, ought to have been framed by the learned Small Causes Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and in addition to the issues already framed, the Small Causes Court is directed to frame the aforesaid issue as an additional issue in the suit.

7.

It is further clarified that in the context of the issue framed by the Small Causes Court, in its order dated 12/02/2015, the Defendants shall be entitled to contend that this is not a case of denial of title.

3 CRA 279-15.doc-P-4 8.

Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

9.

All concerned to act on basis of authenticated copy of this order.

(M. S. SONAK, J.)