*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9683/2009 Vilas Dattu Jagtap and others. ..Petitioners -VERSUS- Shankar Ramu Mali. ..Respondent ............... Mr.Vijay Killedar, Advocate for the Petitioners. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 26th November, 2009. PC:- 1 The Respondent is the original Plaintiff who has instituted a suit for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the Plaintiff’s evidence is over and has been closed. When the evidence of the Petitioners/ Defendants was to commence, the Petitioners moved an application for producing certain documents on record with a view to demonstrate that the Petitioners have made expenditure for construction of the well. Right to way to fetch the water is in dispute. The said application has been rejected mainly on the ground that the same has been filed after the evidence of Plaintiff is closed. 2 No reasons are assigned by the Petitioners for delay in filing of the said documents. In the event if the Petitioners are permitted to file the documents on record, same would result in reopening of the whole case. There is no counter claim made by the *2* Petitioners and the only issue is about the possession of the suit property. Declining permission to file the said documents on record does not cause any real prejudice to the Petitioners. The impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality warranting interference in the Writ Petition. Thus, the Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)