1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3488/2007 Tarachand Meghraj Mulchandani ..vs.. Corporation of the City of Nagpur & Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 17 th March, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Puranik, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petition takes exception to order dated 06.03.2007 passed by 12th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur below application at Exh.-40 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 225/2000. By this order, the petitioner's application for framing issues and remitting the matter back to the trial Court, for recording the additional evidence, came to be dismissed. 3. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.1730/1999 against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. The leaned trial Judge by this Judgment and decree dated 02/05/2000 dismissed the suit 2 and the petitioner being aggrieved thereby preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 225/2000 which is pending on the file of Ad hoc District Judge-12, Nagpur. In this appeal, the petitioner filed application at Exh.-40 for the reliefs mentioned above. 4. The appellate Court rejected the application by observing that the evidence available on record is sufficient to reach the definite conclusion and, therefore, there is no need to frame issue as suggested by the petitioner and remand the matter back to the trial Court for recording the additional evidence. The lower appellate Court also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nedunuri ..vs.. Sampati; AIR 1963 S. C. 864 in this regard. 5. I do not find any error or perversity in the findings of the lower appellate Court so as to enable me to interfere in the same in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 3 Civil Application No. 2001/2008 In view of disposal of the writ petition, the civil application does not survive. The same is, therefore, disposed of. JUDGE kahale