1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3591 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2011 Sanket Vasant Deshmukh & Ors. ...Applicants Versus B.M.C. And another ...Respondents Mr.P.J.Thorat for the Appellant/Applicant Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the Respondent No.1. CORAM:- A.V.NIRGUDE J. DATED:- 22nd NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The appellant is seeking leave of the Court for production of additional evidence in the form of certificate and notification issued by the Government under the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Area Rehabilitation,( Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Both the documents are public documents and could have been filed before the Lower Court during the pendency of the suit. They apparently support the appellant’s case. 2 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 opposed the application saying that the appellant could have produced these documents before the Lower Court and there is nothing on record to show according to him what prevented the appellant to produce these documents. He also mentioned that these documents were available all the time. I am still allowing production of these documents as evidence of the appellant, mainly because these documents are of public origin and even the respondent no.1 Corporation is aware of existence of such notification. The respondent no.1 even did not file written statement to oppose the suit. 3. The appellant filed the suit for certain hut, which according to the appellant is located in the area which is declared as slum under the above mentioned Act. The appellant further said that in view of the location of the hut, the corporation could not have demolished the hut. If the respondent no.1 was really keen to oppose the suit, they could have certainly filed the written statement denying this factual aspect of the case. As said above, since the appellant could not produce the relevant document in support of his case in respect of the location of the hut in a declared slum, the suit was probably dismissed. The supporting documents are now sought to be produced 3 before the court and in view of the circumstances narrated above, the respondent no.1 could not oppose such an application. I am therefore allowing the application. The documents produced on record are marked Exhibit A1 and A2. 4. On the next date appeal shall be heard for admission and the attempt would be made for deciding the appeal finally. 5. Record and proceeding be called for. 6. Earlier order to continue till further order. Stand over to 20.12.2011. (A..V.NIRGUDE, J.)