1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10137 OF 2010 Sakharam s/o. Tukaram Mankar, R/o. Aundha Nagnath, Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli. ....Petitioner. Versus Khandu s/o. Kondiba Gore, R/o. Aundha Nagnath, Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. V.S. Undre h/f. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.R. Bagul, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 7th March, 2011. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. V.S. Undre holding for Advocate Shri. P.R. Katneshwarkar and Advocate Shri. S.R. Bagul for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 2.1 and 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are original plaintiffs before Trial Court and petition is filed by plaintiff No. 2. Hence, service upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is dispensed with. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2 3. The challenge is to order dated 3.8.2010 passed by District Judge­1, Basmat below Exh. 21 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1/2007. 4. Shri. Undre contends that impugned order does not show nature of documents sought to be filed and also does not record any finding on ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. 5. Learned counsel for respondents (appellants before the District Judge ­ 1, Basmat) states that documents produced are public documents and from proceedings pending before consolidation authorities. According to him, most probably those documents have came into existence subsequently i.e. after adjudication by Trial Court. 6. Perusal of application at Exh. 21 reveals that it does not mention the provision of law under which it is filed. It also does not specifically state that documents were received subsequent to adjudication by Trial Court or they were not within knowledge of appellants. These ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 are must in the matter before the Appellate Court. Not only this impugned order also does not record any finding in relation to those ingredients. 7. Hence order dated 3.8.2010 passed below Exh. 21 is quashed and set aside. Application at Exh. 21 is restored back to the file of Appellate 3 Court. Liberty to appellants therein to file appropriate additional affidavit, if they are so advised. In that event, petitioner is also at liberty to file appropriate additional reply. After the additional affidavit and additional reply, if any, is received, Trial Court shall pass fresh orders on Exh. 21 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1/2010. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp10137.10