1 of 3 59-WP.15889.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 59 WRIT PETITION NO. 15889 OF 2023 TAKAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS VERSUS PURNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. THOROUGH ITS MANAGING RAVINDRA BHASKAR PATIL ... Mr. Abhishek Deelip Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Basmat in Special Civil Suit No.06 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the Petitioners for framing additional issues came to be rejected. 3. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the application below Exhibit-41 was filed considering the pleadings of the parties. By the said application, the Petitioners prayed for framing the following additional issues. “I] Whether suit is maintainable for want of statutory notice ? II] Does plaintiff prove that partnership deed dt. 11/07/2014 2026:BHC-AUG:4136 2 of 3 59-WP.15889.2023 registered before notary is legal and valid one ? III] Whether suit is suffers from mis-joinder of parties? IV] Whether this court is having jurisdiction? V] Is suit is within limitation?” 4. He further submits that the learned Trial Court rejected the said application solely on the ground of delay, holding that the civil suit was already at an advanced stage. It was observed that the Plaintiff had already led evidence and even the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit had been filed. On these grounds, the learned Trial Court rejected the application. 5. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the issues involved, particularly the issue of jurisdiction, which goes to the root of the matter, the application ought to have been allowed. He submits that although the issue of jurisdiction was specifically raised in the written statement, the learned Trial Court failed to frame an issue on the said aspect. According to him, in the absence of framing such an additional issue, the Trial Court would not be in a position to effectively decide the main controversy involved in the suit. 6. Having heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners, it is not in dispute that the trial has already proceeded further and has substantially commenced. The Trial Court has framed the following issues: 3 of 3 59-WP.15889.2023 “1 Does plaintiff prove that, it has incurred expenditure of Rs.1,17,21,798/- towards installation and commencement of the production ? 2 Does plaintiff prove that, defendants committed breach of the partnership agreement ? 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,17,21,798/ with interest @ 15% p.a. as prayed ? 4 Whether plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction restraining defendants or their authorized persons, agents from alienating Sugar Factory and its machinery or any movable or immovable property or from creating any third party interest as prayed ? 5 Whether defendants are entitled to the compensatory costs of Rs. 10,000/- ? 6 What order and decree ?” 7. Considering the pleadings of both the parties, the issues have already been framed and the evidence has commenced before the Trial Court. Having regard to these aspects and upon perusal of the prayers made by the Petitioners for framing additional issues, it is not necessary to entertain the said application. The issues framed by the learned Trial Court sufficiently arise from the pleadings of the parties and it is for the parties to lead evidence to prove the same. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 8. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. It is for the parties to prove their respective cases by leading appropriate evidence. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef