AGK 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.2920 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2920 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2920 OF 2008 Frainy Pesi Ragina & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus. Mrs.Jeroo R. Engineer ...Respondent Shri P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr Counsel i/by Shri Jaydeep S. Dev for the Petitioners. Ms Mili V. Thakkar a/w Shri Girish J. Desai a/w Ms S.V.Thakkar for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. : A.A.SAYED, J. : A.A.SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 25th April, 2008. : 25th April, 2008. : 25th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18th March, 2008 passed by the Appeal Court of Small Causes at Bombay whereby the application of the petitioners filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for production of additional evidence at appellate stage came to be rejected. 3. The application was filed in the Appeal court for production of additional evidence at the stage when the arguments of the counsel for the respondent was concluded. What was sought to be filed in the Appeal Court is the note of evidence in respect of another suit between the same parties, which evidence was completed before the completion of the evidence in the present suit from which the appeal arose wherein the present : 2 : 2 : 2 : application is made. Undisputedly, this evidence of the other suit was available to the petitioners before the trial in the present suit was concluded. There is no proper explanation forthcoming as to why this exercise was not done at the stage of trial of the present suit. 4. I have perused the impugned order and material on record. I find that the learned trial Court has dealt with in detail all the aspects of the matter and set out the dates of the evidence recorded in the present suit and the other suit. 5. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the finding of the trial Court cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for by this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to set aside the impugned order. 6. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs. 7. As the arguments of the respondent in the Appeal Court is already concluded, it is expected of the Appeal Court to hear the appeal expeditiously. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE : 3 : 3 : 3 :