TAKAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERSversusPURNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. THOROUGH ITS MANAGING RAVINDRA BHASKAR PATIL

2026:BHC-AUG:4136
                                                      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
                                    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