- 1 - wp3364.22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 918 WRIT PETITION NO. 3364 OF 2022 Vithal Gangaram Kale & others ….Petitioners VERSUS Ashok Manik Jadhav & others …..Respondents ….. Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 6th MARCH, 2025. PER COURT : 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 09.02.2022 passed below Exhibit 73 in Regular Civil Suit No. 151/2013 whereby the Trial Court has refused to frame issue of limitation at the instance of Defendants. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit for partition came to be filed by Plaintiffs/Respondents herein. Defendants filed written statement. In paragraph No. 12 of the written statement, specific issue of bar of limitation is raised. Trial Court framed issues except for the issue of limitation. Parties led evidence. It is thereafter application Exhibit 73 came to be filed for - 2 - wp3364.22.odt framing of issue of limitation. Trial Court rejected the application with finding that since the suit is for partition, issue of limitation need not be framed. 3. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 4. There cannot be dispute about the fact that once the issue of limitation is raised in the written statement, it is the responsibility of the Court to frame issue. It is open for the parties to apply for recasting of the issues or framing additional issues. There is no dispute about the position of law that the issues can be framed, reframed or recasted at any stage of the proceeding till the judgment is delivered. In the circumstances, Trial Court was not justified to refuse to frame the issue of limitation. 5. Though it is sought to be argued on behalf of learned counsel for the Respondents that the issue of limitation does not survive in view of the contentions sought to be made by Petitioners in the written statement, at the time of framing of the issues, the Court is not required to consider whether the party will succeed in such issue or not. Suffice it to say that application Exhibit 73 deserves to - 3 - wp3364.22.odt be allowed. Hence, petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. If parties are entitled to lead any further evidence on the basis of additional issue, they are permitted to do so. 6. Learned counsel for Respondents seeks expeditious disposal of the suit. Learned counsel for Petitioners records no objection for such order. 7. Since the suit is of the year 2013, Trial Court is directed to decide the suit on merit within a period of six months from today. ( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb