1 10496.10WP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10496 OF 2010 Namdeo S/o Kisan Markad . ..Petitioner Versus Vasant S/o Kisan Markad ...Respondent ..... Mr. S.R. Deshpande , advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 10th DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.10.2010 passed below Exh. 102 in Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad, 2 The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 47 R land was purchased by the defendant No. 1 under the registered sale-deed dated 11-06-1987 from Chandrakant, and the defendant No. 1 was put 2 10496.10WP in possession by the said Chandrakant. However, in said sale-deed, due to over sight, it is mentioned that towards western side there is a land of Laxman Vithoba. In fact ,towards western side there was 11-R land of Chandrakakalabai Chandrakakant warkad. It is further contention of the petitioner that the document which the petitioner wanted to produce before the Court, in that respect there was corresponding pleadings in the written statement which was filed in the plaint and the document at Page No. 20 at Exhibit D is the document which is in consonance with the pleadings in the written statement. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court should have allowed the production of the said document at Exhibit D and no prejudice will be caused to the parties, by production of such documents. Once application for production is allowed, it will be open for the other side to argue on merits about the said document. However, refusal for production of such document amounts to denying justice to the petitioner. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on the reported Judgment in case of “Mohanraj Rupchand Jain @ Chhajed V/s. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain & others, reported in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 691” and more particularly, para No. 8 of the said Judgment. The Learned Counsel further placed reliance on the Judgment in case of“ Vitorino Rodrigues & others V/s. Smt. Nirmalabai Shivajirao Dessai (deceased) Through L.Rs. & others, reported in 2006(6) ALL MR 3 10496.10WP 208, and submitted that the parties should not be deprived from tendering evidence by way of production of documents in support of their claim. 3 On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, the document which the petitioner desires to produce before the Court is dated 8-10-2010. When this document came in existence, the trial was in progress and defendants stepped in witness box for examination. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents herein, the attempt of the petitioner to produce the said document at belated stage is for filling up lacuna in the evidence, more particularly, when the said document is recent one dated 8-10-2010. The Counsel further submitted that from 1987 the petitioner had knowledge about the mistake in said document and till 8-10-2010 no steps were taken by the petitioner. Hence, the production of said document cannot be allowed at belated stage when trial court has discarded the evidence of witnesses on said document on 11-10-10. The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to produce such document at belated stage and more particularly, nothing appears in the cross-examination of the defendant No. 1. The counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the reported Judgment of this Court in case of “Ibrahim Haji Ismail Memon V/s. Bheromal 4 10496.10WP Ramgopal Rathi, reported in 1991 Mah. L.R. 189” and submitted that the parties wishing to file the documents should produce the documents at an earlier stage of the suit. Production of the document at the stage of evidence is at a belated stage. Therefore, production of the said document cannot be granted. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that while entertaining the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this cannot interfere with findings of facts. In support of his contention placed reliance on the reported Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “State of Haryana & others v/s Manoj Kumar, reported in 2010 ALL SCR 1362”. 4. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. With the consent of the parties, matter is decided finally. It is not in dispute that the document which the petitioner wishes to produce is dated 8-10-2010. I find considerable force in the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was within the knowledge, as stated by the petitioner in his written statement that the said mistake has occurred and it was open for the petitioner to take corrective measures. However, the petitioner only on 8-10-2010 has taken the steps and said document which the petitioner wants to produce has come in existence on 8-10-2010, when the trial was substantially 5 10496.10WP progressed. I also find considerable substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for the respondents that when the witness on the said document is disbelieved by the trial Court, allowing the production of said document at this stage, would cause prejudice to the respondents herein. It appears that the petitioner herein wants to fill in lacuna in the evidence, having been failed to say so in the cross examination and also to take corrective measures till 8-10-2010. 5. The Trial Court has taken possible view. In my opinion, at this stage the trial is substantially progressed and evidence of the defendants has also been recorded. It is true that normally liberal interpretation should be given to the provisions which enable the parties to produce the documents. However, in the present case, it is apparent that the document has come in existence on 8-10-2010. There is also substance in the contention of the respondents that this court has directed the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the case and decide the same finally by the end of December, 2010. Therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) SDM* 6 10496.10WP