(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 732 of 2009 Vijaykumar s/o. Pandurangji Jaju, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Business, .. Petitioner R/o. Ambajogai, (Original District : Beed. defendant no.3) versus 1. Satish s/o. Satyanarayan Sharma, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Labourer, R/o. Prashant Nagar, Ambajogai, Taluka : Ambajogai, .. Respondents District : Beed. (No.1 - Original plaintiff, 2. The Collector, Beed, Nos.2 & 3 - District : Beed. Original defendant 3. Municipal Council, nos.1 & 2 ) Ambajogai, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. .................. Mr. G.D. Dargad, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.K. Dekshpande, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2. Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate, for respondent no.3. (2) .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd September 2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambajogai, below Exhibits 171 and 185 in Regular Civil Suit No. 25/2002, thereby allowing the applications filed the respondent no.1 plaintiff for production of documents and further leading additional evidence in respect of the documents produced. 2. Mr. G.D. Dargad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the trial court has grossly erred in allowing the application at the fag end of the trial. He submits that the evidence of both the parties was over and the matter was kept for hearing. He submits that the applications are nothing but an attempt to fill up lacunas in the case of the plaintiff. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (2009(4) Scale 90). 3. From the perusal of the record, it would reveal that the application came to be filed by the respondent no.1 plaintiff stating that his uncle and father had died in the year 1993 and 2000, respectively. It has been stated in the application, that when a search was made, certain documents were found by the respondent plaintiff which were in Urdu language pertaining to 1355 Fasli. A prayer was, therefore, made for (3) liberty to produce the said documents. 4. The trial court has found that the explanation given by the plaintiff for production of documents at such a belated stage was acceptable and, as such, allowed the applications. 5. It can be seen that the plaintiff has specifically averred that the said documents could not be available to him at an earlier point of time, in spite of exercise of due diligence. It has been found that the said documents were not traceable and immediately after they were traced, an application was filed. The trial court, while exercising its discretion, has found that the explanation given by the plaintiff was acceptable and, as such, allowed the applications. The trial court has also observed that the defendants would be at liberty to cross examine the plaintiff and that the question of admissibility of the said documents would be considered only after evidence was led by the parties. 6. This court would interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial court, only if it is found that the discretion is exercised in a perverse manner. No perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the trial court so as to warrant interference. 7. In so far as the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) through L.Rs. (supra) is concerned, it could be seen that in the said case, the documents which were sought to be introduced for recalling the witnesses were available at the time when affidavit was prepared and affirmed. The Apex Court itself has observed thus : (4) " It is not as if certain new facts have been discovered subsequently which were not within the knowledge of the applicant when the affidavit evidence was prepared." The Apex Court has further observed thus : " Of course, if the evidence on re- examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court to permit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permission to the defendants to cross- examine the witness thereafter. " 8. In the present case, the trial court has found that the documents have a bearing on ultimate decision of the suit and, as such, exercised the discretion by in favour of production of documents. 9. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp732