Ravindra Dwarkaprasad Pachori vs Anupkumar Madhavdas… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Ravindra Dwarkaprasad Pachori vs Anupkumar Madhavdas… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs and the Rule stands discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner-defendant's application (Exhibit 60) under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues regarding the plaintiff-landlord's legal ownership/tenancy rights over the suit premises. +1 more

Court's answer

A perusal of the issues earlier framed by the trial Court (on 20.11.2019, at Exhibit 09, based on the pleadings) clearly reflects that all the relevant issues for deciding the suit for eviction are already framed.

Ratio / Principle

The additional issues suggested by the defendant challenging the ownership of the plaintiff-landlord are not necessary and not required to be framed considering the nature of the suit; the suit by the landlord for eviction of the tenant will be decided on the basis of the evidence on record even with respect to the aspect of tenancy of the defendant.

Key takeaways

The application filed by the defendant at the fag end of the trial is definitely an attempt to prolong the proceedings, warranting refusal of the proposed additional issues.ratio¶¶21
On a perusal of the pleadings and the issues already framed, there is no perversity in the reasons recorded by the trial Court; accordingly, no case is made out for causing indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Khubalkar, J.), Writ Petition No. 5305 of 2025, decided January 30, 2026 — DISMISSED. The petitioner, original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2019 (the respondent-landlord's suit for recovery of rent and eviction), challenged the trial Court's order dated 17.03.2025 rejecting his Exhibit 60 application under Order XIV Rule 5, CPC 1908, by which he sought framing of additional issues — whether the plaintiff had legal ownership/tenancy rights over the suit premises and whether the rent agreement executed by the plaintiff with the defendant was legal and proper. Held: (i) the issues already framed by the trial Court on 20.11.2019 at Exhibit 09, based on the pleadings, covered all relevant issues for deciding the eviction suit; (ii) the additional issues challenging the plaintiff-landlord's ownership were not necessary nor required to be framed considering the nature of the suit, which will be decided on the evidence on record even as regards the defendant's tenancy; (iii) the application moved at the fag end of the trial, after closure of the defendant's evidence (alongside several re-opening applications), was definitely an attempt to prolong the proceedings; and (iv) finding no perversity in the trial Court's reasons, no case was made out for indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; Rule discharged. The respondent's counsel had relied on Salim Miyan Khan Lassiwale v. Majlis Madarsa-E-Islamia Society, (2022) 6 Mah.L.J. 441 (submitting that Order L excludes settlement-of-issues provisions), which the Court did not specifically deal with.

2026:BHC-NAG:1868

3001WP5305-25.odt 1 Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5305 OF 2025

Ravindra Dwarkaprasad Pachori, Aged 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o Dr.Majumdar Ward, At Po. Hinganghat, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha (MS).

PETITIONER

VERSUS

Anupkumar Madhavdas Mohta, Age 59 years, Occ:Business, R/o Ram Mandir Ward, At Po. Hinganghat, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha (MS).

RESPONDENT

Shri R.D. Hajare, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Ghare, counsel for the respondent.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : JANUARY 30, 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.032025 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application at Exhibit 60 under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’).

The petitioner is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2019 filed by the respondent seeking recovery of rent and eviction. In the suit the defendant appeared and filed his written statement and after the evidence of the defendant was closed, he filed an application for recasting /framing of additional issues. The application was resisted by the respondent-plaintiff and it came to be rejected by order dated 17.03.2025, which is subjected to challenge by way of instant petition.

3001WP5305-25.odt 2 Judgment

Primary contention of Shri R.D. Hajare, counsel for the petitioner is that a crucial question about legal ownership of the plaintiff-landlord is required to be framed and since no issue regarding plaintiff’s ownership and tenancy rights has been framed, an additional issue was required to be framed as to whether the rent agreement which was executed by the plaintiff with the defendant was legal and proper and secondly whether the plaintiff has legal ownership or tenancy rights over the suit premises to claim rent and seek eviction of the defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these issues are most relevant issues and go to the root of the matter and were required to be framed.

Opposing the petition, Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application for recasting of issue was filed after the evidence of the defendant was over and the same is rightly rejected. He also submitted that in view of the provision of Order L of the Code, the provisions relating to ‘settlement of issues’ are excluded and as such the application deserved to be rejected. To buttress his submissions, he relied on the judgment in Salim Miyan Khan Lassiwale & Another Versus Majlis Madarsa-E-Islamia Society & Others [ (2022) 6 Mah.L.J. 441 ].

While considering the controversy involved in the suit, it has to be seen that the trial Court has already framed the issues on 20.11.2019 at

3001WP5305-25.odt 3 Judgment

Exhibit 09 based on the pleadings of the parties and the suit has proceeded further. After the evidence was led and defendant filed the evidence closing pursis, the application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code was filed by the defendant. A perusal of the issues earlier framed by the trial Court clearly reflects that all the relevant issues for deciding the suit for eviction are already framed. The parties have led evidence to discharge their respective burden. The additional issues suggested by the defendant challenging the ownership of the plaintifflandlord are not necessary and not required to be framed, considering the nature of the suit. The suit is filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant and it will be decided on the basis of evidence on record even with respect to aspect of tenancy of the defendant. As such, the application filed by the defendant at the fag end of the trial is definitely an attempt to prolong the proceedings. As observed by the trial Court, the proposed issues are not found necessary at all for deciding the controversy involved in the suit.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has given due consideration to all the relevant aspects. It is also observed that after the evidence of the defendant was closed, the defendant-tenant has filed several applications for re-opening the evidence and attempted to examine the witnesses only with an intention to prolong the suit. By observing the overall conduct of the defenant-tenant, the trial Court has rejected the application.

3001WP5305-25.odt 4 Judgment

On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the issues already framed, I do not find any perversity with the reasons recorded by the trial Court. As such, no case is made out for causing indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

APTE

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/02/2026 10:22:11