dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7702 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7702 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7702 OF 2008 Mr.Jayant Kumar Shetty Petitioner Vs. Mr.Srinivas Iyengar Respondent. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mr.Tejash Dande for the Petitioner. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate i/by Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th December 2008. : 11th December 2008. : 11th December 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7.11.2008 whereby original plaintiff’s application to take additional documents on record has been allowed. The petitioner is original plaintiff. In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant, his application for temporary injunction was rejected. He preferred present appeal. In Appeal, this application is allowed. Admittedly, the trial is pending. Admittedly, this is an interlocutory stage. The appellate court has ample power to take additional or more documents on record. Once the appellate court takes the documents on record, it is necessary to give full opportunity to both the parties, because those documents are taken on record for the first time. The facet of Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is necessary to consider even in a situation like this, but still ( 2 ) basically it is applicable when decree is passed and any party files or wants to take on record additional documents in appeal. The power of appellate court under Section 107 of CPC read with Order 41, Rules 27 and 28 just cannot be overlooked. 2. Once the court, after considering rival contention, including aspect of due diligence and/or not filing or producing these documents on record at relevent time, passed the impugned order and granted this application by observing that the respondent shall have chance to challenge these documents at the time of argument, as the matter is at interlocutory stage, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. 3. However, the appellate court, considering the scope and purpose of Order 41, Rule 28 CPC and even otherwise needs to give full opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 4. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)