56 WP No.7808.2017 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7808 OF 2017 SMT SUSHILA RANIDAN CHANDAK VERSUS SMT SARITA ANANT NERKAR AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. B. Yawalkar Advocate for Respondents : Mr. G. V. Wani … WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6954 OF 2017 …. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Date : 4th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for respective sides. 2. The petitioners raised a challenge to the order dated 25.10.2016 passed below Exh. 25 and Exh. 32 by the learned 6th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon, in Special Civil Suit No. 131 of 2013 and Special Civil Suit No. 133 of 2013 respectively, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC came to be rejected. 3. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the suits are filed for specific performance of contract and the issues are framed 2026:BHC-AUG:9993 56 WP No.7808.2017 -2- those are at page No. 35 which are as under :- 1. Do plaintiff proves that agreement to sale dt. 4.1.2010 regarding the suit property ? 2. Does plaintiff prove their ready and willingness to perform their part of contract ? 3. Whether time is the essence of their contract ? 4. Is the suit tenable in present form ? 5. What order and decree ? 4. The original plaintiff have preferred an application seeking the framing of two additional issues, as set out at page No. 36 of the petition, as under :- 1. Whether the defendant proves that the transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendant was not an agreement to sell, but was intended as a security for a loan? 2. Whether the defendant proves that the market value of the field Gat No. 1662, was Rs. 1.5 Crore ? 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Yawalkar submits that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for framing additional issues. It is contended that the document in question was never intended to be an Agreement to Sell, but was executed only as a security for a loan, a specific issue must be framed to that effect. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the Court should frame an issue regarding the market value of the agricultural land (Gat No. 1662), 56 WP No.7808.2017 -3- which is allegedly worth 1.5 Crore. ₹ 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Wani opposes the petition, submitting that in a suit for Specific Performance, the primary burden of proof lies entirely upon the plaintiffs. It is argued that the plaintiffs must prove the execution of the contract and their readiness and willingness; therefore, separate issues for every defence raised are redundant and would only delay the trial. 7. Having heard both sides and perused the record, I find that the existing Issue No. 1 which requires the plaintiff to prove the Agreement to Sell dated 04.01.2010, comprehensively covers the dispute. If the plaintiffs fail to prove a valid and enforceable agreement, or if the defendants successfully demonstrate that the document was merely a security for a loan, the suit will naturally fail. The burden to prove the character of the document is inherently linked to the plaintiffs’ burden to prove a concluded contract. Therefore, the additional issues sought by the petitioners are unnecessary, as the primary issue already encompasses the legal scrutiny of the transaction. 8. In view of the above, I find no error or illegality in the orders passed by the learned Trial Court. The issues as currently framed 56 WP No.7808.2017 -4- are sufficient for adjudication of the dispute. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Omkar Joshi