Govind v. Mukund

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.8322 OF 2024 Govind s/o. Nilkanth JoshiAge : 64 Years, Occ. Agri.,r/o.Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar..PetitionerVs.

Mukund s/o. Rameshwar Bhutada,2. Shrikrishna s/o. Nilkanth Joshi,3. Keshav s/o. Nilkanth Joshi..Respondents----Mr.A.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.Kapil Moray, Advocate h/f. Mr.P.V.Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.1Mr.N.C.Garud, Advocate for respondent no.3---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 11, 2026ORDER :- In a suit filed for declaration of the sale deed as invalid, anapplication came to be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking framingof preliminary issue and to decide the same immediately. Theapplication was objected by the respondents/defendants. Learned trialcourt rejected the application on 29.09.2023. Learned trial courtobserved that the preliminary issue can be framed in a suit afterconsidering the pleadings of the parties in the written statement. Learned trial court has also recorded findings that even if preliminary 230-sr933issues are framed, it is incumbent on the part of the court to givefindings on all the issues in the suit. With this finding, theapplication below Exh.39 came to be rejected by learned trial court. The order is of 29.09.2023 which is under challenge. The WritPetition was filed in November, 2023. There is no stay granted bythis court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thecontents of paragraph 14 of the written statement would speak thatthe defendants remained with no controversy with the prayersaverred by the plaintiff in the suit. He would submit that by way ofparagraph 14 in the written statement, the defendants have deniedthat the plaintiff, defendant nos.2 and 3 are legal representatives ofthe deceased - Shakuntala and Nilkanth. He submits that learnedtrial court was under obligation to frame preliminary issue anddispose of the suit on the basis of the admission itself. He submitsthat learned trial court has not considered this aspect of the matterand without going into the scheme provided under Order 14 of C.P.C.,rejected the application. He would submit that it was rightful for thelearned trial court to frame preliminary issue, to try the preliminaryissue first and decide the suit. 330-sr9333.Mr.Garud, learned counsel for respondent no.3 wouldsupport the order passed by the trial court as also the argumentadvanced by the petitioner.

With the able assistance of learned counsel for theparties, I have gone through the Writ Petition compilation and thereply filed by the respondents/defendants.

Paragraph 14 of the written statement is reproduced asfollows:-१४) वादीचे दावा कलम २ मधील कथन की, "वर कलम नं. १ मधीलमिमळकत वादी व प्रतीवादी कं. २ व ३यांचे वडि(cid:27)लोपार्जी(cid:31)त मालकी वकब्र्जीेवहीवाटीची आहे. वादी व प्रतीवादी नं. २ व ३ यांचे र्जीनक वडि(cid:27)लमिनळकंठ आत्माराम र्जीोशी हे दिंदनाक १४/०७/२००६ रोर्जीी मयत झालेलेआहे. वादी व प्रतीवादी क. २ व ३ यांचे र्जीनक वडि(cid:27)ल मयत झाल्यानंतरदावा कलम १ मधील मिमळकत वारसा हक्काने वादी व प्रतीवादी क. २ व ३व त्यांची र्जीनक आई शकुंतला मिनळकंठ र्जीोशी यांचे नावे झाली. वादी वप्रतीवादी क. २ व ३यांची र्जीनक आई शकुंतला मिनळकंठ र्जीोशी मिद.०८/००० २०१२ रोर्जीी मयत झाली आहे. मयत मिनळकंठ आत्मारामर्जीोशी व मयत शकुंतला मिनळकंठ र्जीोशी यांना वादी व प्रडितवादी क. २ व ३यांचे पश्चात अन्य कायदेशीर वारस नाही." हे वादीचे कथन धादांत खोटे वलबा(cid:27)ीचे असुन ते कथन प्रडितवादी हे स्पष्टपणे व तंतोतंत नाकारीत आहेवादीने स्पष्टरीतीने शाबीत करावे.

On plain reading of the said paragraph, it is crystal clearthat the contentions of the plaintiff as to `admission by thedefendants’ is apparently misconceived. The recitals in the writtenstatement itself show that the defendant has candidly denied the 430-sr933pleadings in paragraph 2 of the plaint. As such, the application itselfwas misconceived. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed bylearned trial court while rejecting the application. On the other hand, learned trial court has consciously observed the principle governingframing of issues and deciding them by learned trial court. For readyreference, the observations made by learned trial in paragraphs 7and 8 in the impugned order reproduced as follows:-

In so far as framing of preliminary issue isconcerned, as per Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC issuesare of two kinds i.e. issues of fact and issues oflaw. As per Rule 5, at the first hearing of the suitthe court shall after reading the same and writtenstatement, if any and after examination under Rule 2 of Order X and after hearing parties ortheir pleaders ascertain upon what materialpropositions of facts or of law the parties are atvariance, and shall thereupon proceed to frameand record the issues on which the right decisionof the case appears to depend. Rule 2(1) of Order14 of CPC provides that, notwithstanding that acase may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. Whereas sub-rule (2), provides where issues bothof law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any partthereof may be disposed of on an issue of lawonly, it may try that issue first if that issue relatesto the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suitcreated by any law for the time being in force andfor that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone thesettlement of the other issues until after that issuehas been determined, and may deal with the suitin accordance with the decision on that issue.