The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of tenancy must be bona fide and form the core issue for determination of the claim raised in the suit. Additionally, the timing of raising such a plea is crucial, and raising it at the fag end of the trial to delay proceedings may not be considered favorable by the court.

Heard Mrs.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for petitioners and Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 3.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. Petitioners are original plaintiffs and are seeking quashment of the order dated 03.12.2009, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom, below Exhibit-86 in Regular Civil Suit No.120/2006.

3. Petitioners - original plaintiffs instituted suit against defendants - respondents herein claiming specific performance of agreement alleged to have been executed on 21.12.1976 by the defendants. The dispute relates to land S.No.70/D (G.No.129) situate at village Mankeshwar, Tq. Bhoom.

4. It is contended by plaintiffs in the plaint that defendants are legal heirs of one Bajiaba Khindkar. He had a brother by name Dajiaba. Both of them are dead. It is contended that in the year 1975-76, Dajiaba and Bajiaba had handed over possession of the property to the plaintiffs on yearly lease basis. It is, thus, contended that they (plaintiffs) were in possession of the property as tenants. In the year 1976, Dajiaba and Bajiaba agreed to alienate an area to the extent of 57 ares for consideration of Rs. 2500/- to plaintiff no.1 and executed 'Isar Pavati' on 21.12.1976. Deceased brothers accepted Rs.1500/- towards part of consideration amount and balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The land was already given in possession of plaintiffs and after execution of agreement to sell, their possession continued on the basis of said agreement. The deceased brothers were required to obtain permission in respect of alienation of the property and thereafter sale deed was to be executed. During their lifetime, deceased brothers Dajiaba and Bajiaba did not secure the permission. After their demise, defendants herein were supposed to secure the permission and complete the transaction, however, defendants no.1 to 3 presented Regular Civil Suit No.79/83 against plaintiffs claiming decree of perpetual injunction. Said suit came to be dismissed on 28.11.1989. Against dismissal of suit, an appeal was presented, being Regular Civil Appeal No.06/90 and said appeal came to be dismissed on 10.03.1998. Plaintiffs, thus, are claiming decree of specific performance against defendants as they failed to honour the agreement executed by deceased Dajiaba and Bajiaba.

5. Defendants appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement. Defendants have specifically denied the contention in respect of alleged tenancy of the plaintiffs. They have also denied their liability in respect of execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial Court, on the basis of pleadings raised by respective parties, framed issues on 06.03.2007 and proceeded to record evidence of the parties. In the suit, evidence of the parties has already been recorded and the matter was posted for hearing arguments. At that stage, plaintiffs moved an application requesting the Court to frame additional issue in respect of tenancy of the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that before execution of the agreement to sell, they were inducted over the property in their capacity as tenants and as such, issue in respect of plaintiffs' tenancy in relation to the suit land is required to be framed.

7. The application was opposed by the defendants contending that the suit is essentially for specific performance of agreement and question in respect of alleged tenancy raised by plaintiffs does not fall for consideration or adjudication by the Court. It is contended that in the document at Exhibit102, plaintiffs have specifically contended that they are in possession on the basis of agreement to sell and in part performance of the agreement. It is also contended that the application is presented at belated stage when recording of evidence is over and the matter is posted for final argumen