JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of both the sides.

2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed below exhibit 1 in R.C.S. No. 144 of 2008 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Kannad.

3. Mr. Sonpethkar, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the suit was fixed for final argument. The trial Court has framed additional issues 6-A and 6-B without giving an opportunity of being heard to either side. It has caused serious prejudice to the rights and interest of the parties. He submitted that the Court has ample power to frame additional issues or strike out any issue even before passing the decree. But that exercise needs to be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. He submitted that the suit came to be adjourned on number of occasions for final arguments and all of a sudden, this impugned order regarding framing of additional issues came to be passed by the trial Court. The impugned order below exhibit 1 in R.C.S. No. 144 of 2008 does not sustain in the eyes of law and it needs to be quashed and set aside.

4. Mr. Palsikar, learned coun