1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 291/2008 in Writ Petition No. 1720/2008 (D) Uday Griha Nirman Samasya Niwarak Sanstha, thr. Secretary ..vs.. Vijay Kumar Narayanrao Dixit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. H. D. Dangre, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. V. Manohar, Advocate for the respondent CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATED : 25 th September, 2008 Heard finally by consent. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is arising out of judgment dated 10.07.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition whereby the appellant's/ plaintiff's application for grant of permission to file additional document and restricted to exhibit signature on Exh.-126 (agreement to sale) only and not exhibited the whole document, were rejected in a suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of the contract based 2 upon the said agreement. 2. The plaintiff has already examined his main two witnesses and after cross-examination of the same was over, an application for grant of permission to file additional document was moved to prove the payments to the respondent/defendant, to fill up the lacunae. We have noted that no case is made out as required for filing such documents, at such a belated stage, as contemplated under Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). There is nothing mentioned why it could not be produced earlier. There was no reference made to this document at any earlier point of time. The trial is on since 2000. The President of the Society was examined on 20.09.2000. The cross-examination of the Secretary was also over on 17.09.2007. The son of Shri Laxminarayan (President) is in the witness box. These documents were very much available at the relevant time even at the time of 3 examination of two important witnesses as referred to above. At this stage, therefore, as the plaintiff/appellant has examined two witnesses and the respondent/defendant has already put his entire defence to the witness and, therefore, without disclosing sufficient reason; for non production of these documents and that these documents goes to the root of his case. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions, though it is an interlocutory order, rightly dismissed the petition by giving reasons. We see no case is made out by the appellant to interfere with the same. 3. As noted above, the agreement to sale is the basic document of the suit. The father of the witness (Nitin) was the President of the Society and the executant of the agreement, when he was alive, the evidence was recorded in the year 2000 itself. The said agreement could have been easily proved through him. The other witnesses 4 were also examined. The learned trial Judge, while recording the evidence on affidavit rightly restricted to exhibit the document as the witness identified the signature only. The said witness is not a writer/scriber, witness or signatory to the said agreement. Being son, he identified only the signature of his father. The trial Judge, therefore, restricted the exhibition of the signature only. The agreement, therefore, cannot be exhibited at the instance of the third person, who only identified the signature and not the other parts of the agreement including its contents. The said agreement could have been placed and exhibited at the relevant time but it was not done. Therefore, the third person, who only identified the signature of the executant, cannot insist to exhibit whole document in such a fashion. 4. In totality, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, maintaining the 5 orders passed by the trial Court on interlocutory applications. However, all points are kept open. 5. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE kahale