1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6478 OF 2006. Azizkhan S/o Abdullakhan and another ... Petitioners. Versus Gangaram S/o Fakirrao Satpute and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.J.V.Dhumal, advocate holding for Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.H.V.Patil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 to 7 ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 29.06.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenged order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jintoor, below the application (Exh.78) in suit (RCS No.65/2003). 2 2. The petitioners filed suit (RCS No. 65/2003) for recovery of possession in respect of agricultural lands bearing S.No.20 and S.No.25 on the basis of their title. They asserted that they are owners of the suit lands. The defendants alleged that in suit (RCS No.84/1981) Afsarkhan who was father of plaintiff No. 2/petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 Azizkhan were the defendants and that suit was compromised. Deceased Afsarkhan then executed a sale deed dated 13.10.1983 in their favour in terms of the compromise and a decree was drawn as per the compromise petition. 3. The defendants referred to the said sale deed in their written statement dated 5.12.2003. The plaintiffs/petitioners examined two witnesses in support of their case. It was thereafter that the application was filed for calling the record and proceedings of the suit bearing (RCS No.84/1981) and calling of the sale deed dated 14.10.1983 from the defendants for sending the same to the handwriting expert. 3 4. It appears that the application was rejected because since 2003 for about three (3) years, no such request was made and it was in the midst of the trial that the said sale deed was being sought. It can not be overlooked that the defendants were required to prove their ownership on the basis of said sale deed. If the defendants are not willing to produce such documents then they can not be forced to do so without any reason. The plaintiffs/petitioners have an opportunity at the stage of rebuttal of the defendants case during the trial to seek appropriate directions if prima facie some foundation can be laid to demonstrate that the sale deed was not executed by deceased Afsarkhan. The impugned order is discretionary one and does not suffer from any perversity as such. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp647606