Bombay High CourtWP/119/2016dismissedrule discharged

Mohammad Shfiq S/O Mohammad Suleman v. Tahsildar Barshitakli And Another

2016-01-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp119.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 119 OF 2016 (MOHAMMAD SHAFI MOHAMMAD SULEMAN...VS..THASILDAR, BARSHITAKLI & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JANUARY 22, 2016.

Heard Shri A.S. Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner and Ms H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application (Exh.40) filed by him praying that the issues be recast. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P., I have examined the copy of the plaint, copy of the written statement filed by the defendants, issues framed by the trial Court, the application filed by the petitioner and the impugned order. The impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

2 wp119.16 The petitioner would be at liberty to raise the challenge as per Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if occasion arises.

JUDGE RRaut..