Maroti Digambar Kakde vs Prabhakar Sitaram Kulkarni
2017 Latest Caselaw 5028 Bom

                                      {1}                            wp9226-17

 drp
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO.9226 OF 2017

 Maroti s/o Digambar Kakde                                      PETITIONER
 Age - 65 years, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Mali Gallil, Parbhani,
 Taluka and District - Parbhani

          VERSUS

 Prabhakar s/o Sitaram Kulkarni                               RESPONDENT
 Age - Major, Occ - Service
 R/o Shivaji Nagar,
 Opp to Navandar Hospital, Parbhani
 Taluka and District - Parbhani

                               .......

Mr. Pravin N. Kalani, Advocate for the petitioner .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 25th JULY, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner quite extensively.

2. The petitioner-plaintiff, purportedly aggrieved by order

dated 11th November, 2016 on Exhibit-61 in Regular Civil Suit

No. 236 of 2011, whereunder his application seeking to frame

issue as to whether the defendant proves that he is bonafide

purchaser or not, has been rejected, is before this court. While

earlier on an attempt under Exhibit-50 for similar purpose had

been made, the court had deferred the same till cross-

{2} wp9226-17

examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff during the same had

referred to whether purchase being bonafide and as such, a

request has been made under Exhibit-61 for framing issue as to

whether the defendant proves that he is bonafide purchaser.

3. The application had been opposed by the defendant

referring to that additional issues had already been framed after

amendment of the plaint, cross-examination of the plaintiff had

been completed long back and neither the defendant has

pleaded in the written statement nor the plaintiff has been

suggested anything in respect of bonafide purchase and that the

issue does not arise from pleadings.

4. Trial court has observed that defendant has not admitted

ownership of plaintiff. He has purchased the property from the

power of attorney holder Abbasaheb Kishanrao Deshmukh.

Defendant has never suggested to the plaintiff during cross-

examination that he is bonafide purchaser.

5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasons

given by trial court can hardly be impeached being not proper.

Even otherwise, it does not appear to be a case of the petitioner

that any such issue would ever arise from the pleadings.

{3} wp9226-17

6. In the circumstances, writ petition is devoid of any

substance and stands dismissed as such.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/wp9226-17