After hearing parties, the position emerges that, petitioners apprehend that the observations as are appearing in paragraphs no. 7,8,9 and 10 of the order impugned, may pre-empt findings on the issues being framed as premilary issues, for, according to learned counsel for petitioners, the order tends to pre-judge the issues without letting opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence.

Learned counsel for respondents fairly submits that such an apprehension may not be entertained by petitioners, for, issues have been framed and those will have to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced on either side. According to learned counsel, observations in the impugned order referred to by petitioners have bee recorded for the purpose of framing and treating the issues as preliminary issues. The observations have no efficacy beyond the

WP-2817.15

same and shall not interlude the findings being given on merits and evidence with regard to the issues framed.

Having considered aforesaid submissions, it is made clear that observations as are appearing in paragraphs no. 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the order impugned which have weighed for framing issues and treating those as preliminary issues, would not and shall not have any bearing on the findings being recorded on said issues. The findings and decisions on the issues shall solely rest on the evidence being adduced by the parties as well as on consideration of contentions in respect of the same, including letting an opportunity to the parties to address themselves afresh on the considerations which have weighed with the court while framing issues.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

pnd

Rajan Madhukar Shelke and Another v. Ravindra Keshav Shelke and Others

Case brief