wp1206.11 -1- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITOIN NO. 1206 OF 2011 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ In an appeal filed before the District Court challenging the grant of succession certificate, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 28 and 29 seeking leave to examine four authorities- persons as witnesses. The appellate court noticed that the application should have been under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. and effort was only to delay in disposal of the Regular Civil Appeal. There is absolutely no justification why such evidence could not be produced earlier. The impugned order itself shows that before the trial court, such effort was made but later on given up. The observation about non filing wp1206.11 -2- application under Order 41 Rule 27 needs to be appreciated in the above background. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. Petition is rejected. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI. J.) Date:21.02.2011. rlj/