1 wp 773.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 773 OF 2010 1. Chandrakant S/o Vyankatrao Khadgave and another .. Petitioners Versus 1. Damodhar S/o Sopanrao Bansode and others .. Respondents Shri V. B. Dhage, Advocate for Pertitioners. Shri S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the original plaintiffs who had filed a suit for specific performance of contract. Said suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred an appeal. During the pendency of appeal the petitioners filed an application for additional evidence i. e. examining the Consolidation Officer to prove as to when the consolidation scheme was effected. The said application came to be rejected. The petitioners also filed an application for review of the said 2 wp 773.10 order. It was also rejected. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed present writ petition. 2. Shri Dhage, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that, the Court below has not considered real controversy between the parties and has rejected the application in a casual manner. The law permits examination of witness even at appellate stage. This aspect has not been considered by the Court. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case Dagdoba Tryambak Mule Vs. Mainabai Harchand Rajput reported in 2007 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. page 70. The learned counsel further contends that it is necessary to bring on record as to when the consolidation scheme was effectuated. The same would be relevant as it was one of the term of agreement that the sale deed is to be executed thereafter i. e. after the consolidation scheme is implemented. 3. The proposition laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Dagdoba Tryambak Mule referred supra that even in appeal an additional evidence can be recorded and the witness can be examined is an accepted position. The same need not be dilated. The Court while dealing with the 3 wp 773.10 application has observed that the petitioners at no point of time in the Trial Court have sought examination of the said witness. It is also observed that, it is on record that in the year 1994 the consolidation scheme was finalized. When the particular fact according to the learned Judge is on record, there is no necessity to again examine the witness for the said purpose. The same would not be material and relevant. The appellate Court considering these aspects has rejected the said application. 4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is sans merit, as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11