1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MCA (Review) NO. 785/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1317 OF 2010 (Rizwana d/o Abdul Gaffar vs. Fakir Mohd. s/o Abdul Aziz Choudhari) with MCA (Review) NO. 786/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1318 OF 2010 (Rizwana d/o Abdul Gaffar vs. Fakir Mohd. s/o Abdul Aziz Choudhari & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 21, 2010. Heard Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel for the respondents – applicants and Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the non-applicant – petutioner. This Court has already on 27.04.2010 allowed writ petitions and granted leave to the petitioner – appellant to produce documents and to amend his plaint by allowing his application under Order 41, Rule 27 and under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, filed during the pendency of appeal. Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel has contended that as he could not remain present on that date, the matter needs to be reheard. Accordingly, I have heard Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel. His contention is suit was pending for over seven years and during its pendency, some applications for amendment were moved. By present amendment filed after dismissal of suit, effort is to fill in the lacunae by adding inconsistent pleas. He has relied upon the 2 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh vs. Manohar Singh, reported at (2006) 5 Mh. L.J. 634, the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar vs. Shankar, reported at 2008(1) Mh. L.J. 142, the judgment of learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Kamala Bala Biswas vs. Kalachand Sarkar, reported at AIR 1996 Cal. 81 and the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S.D. Schools Trust vs. Adil Jamshed, reported at 2003 (1) Mh. L.J. 226. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the non- applicant has supported the orders already passed by contending that no case for review is made out. It is to be noted that the story of discovery of documents by brother of original petitioner while cleaning the house is accepted and on the strength of that story, permission under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC has been granted. Not only this, because of the so called document, leave to amend has also been granted. This finding is not being assailed here. It is, therefore, apparent that the finding of said document and adding of pleas on the strength thereof cannot be viewed as adding inconsistent pleas in the matter. The judgment in the case of Baldev Singh vs. Manohar Singh (supra) is not relevant in present facts. It considers the aspect of commencement of trial and raising of inconsistent plea after it commences. The provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC are not invoked in it. The judgment in Ashok 3 Kumar vs. Shankar, (supra) shows that there after the suit was dismissed, effort was made by amendment to explain the admissions which weigh with the trial Court for dismissing it. In S.D. Schools Trust vs. Adil Jamshed, (supra), while considering the case under under Order 41, Rule 27(b) of CPC, this Court has found that there was no “due diligence” established on record. Here, the document has come to light only during cleaning of house. All these three rulings have, therefore, no bearing in present matter. In judgment in the case of Kamala Bala Biswas vs. Kalachand Sarkar, (supra), the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court has found that there is no explanation as to why disputed facts were not introduced under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC during the pendency of suit. Here, there is explanation. It is to be noted that merits of the controversy cannot be gone into at this stage. The provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 and Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC are procedural and are inserted only to meet such contingency. If the arguments of Shri Marpakwar are accepted, then there need not be any provision like this in the statute. I do not find anything, warranting interference in the matters in review jurisdiction. Miscellaneous Civil Applications are rejected. No costs. JUDGE *GS.