1 (Wp 1375 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2011 G.H. Khatri & Co. ...Petitioner Vs. Navi Mumbai Sports Association, through its Trustees. ...Respondents ----- Mr.E.P. Bharucha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sham Walve for Petitioner Ms.Prabha Rathod i/b. Mr.Suraj Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14th March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. The Petitioner is the Original Tenant and he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vashi dated 11.1.2011. By the said order, the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17A and section 151 of the CPC was rejected and his request for reopening the trial and recalling the witness No.1 examined by the Plaintiff was also rejected by the Trial Court. In the application, it was contended that he had preferred an application seeking directions to the Plaintiff to file original agreement to lease executed between the Plaintiff and the CIDCO and the said 2 (Wp 1375 of 2011) application was rejected by the Court against by its order dated 29.10.2009. However, the Writ Petition, which was filed by the Petitioner was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court by taking out appropriate application. It was contended in the said application by the Defendant that the said document was essential for deciding the matter. According to the Defendant, the agreement which was executed between the Plaintiff and the CIDCO, the Plaintiff was permitted to construct ground plus first floor structure. However, the Plaintiff had constructed the second floor and he had received invitation cards at the time of inauguration of the said upper floor. The Trial Court, however, rejected his application. It was contended that though Order 18 Rule 17A was deleted by virtue of inherent power under section 151, the Trial Court has power to give a direction in the interest of justice to reopen the case for further evidence. It was submitted that though an application was made by the Defendant asking the Plaintiff to produce the said document, the said document was not produced and therefore, the present application has been filed. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shantibai K. Vardhan & Ors. Vs.Meera G. Patel & Anr. [2009 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 445] 3 (Wp 1375 of 2011) and another judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Cosmosteels Private Limited Vs. Supermax International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2009(2) Bom. C.R. 276]. 3. There cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio of judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. However, in the present case, the said document was relied upon by the Plaintiff in the suit filed by the Defendant. The Defendant could very well have applied for the certified copy of the impugned order. However, no such application was preferred in time. The Trial Court, therefore was justified in rejecting the application by observing that the issues were framed on 7.6.2006. Additional issue was framed on 29.5.2006. Parties had led the evidence on 21.2.2009 and the matter was posted for final arguments and thereafter, this application was filed. In my view, taking into consideration the cogent reasons given by the Trial Court, no case is make out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed and is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)