- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. Miscellaneous Civil Application no. 581 of 2010 in First Appeal NO. 87 OF 2004 Shri Antonio Bernardo Francisco Preira, Nagoa Goa ….. Applicant. Versus The Deputy Collector( Development) Margao Goa and anr. ….. Respondents. Mr. M. P. Almeida, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:-F. M. REIS, J. Date:-27th August, 2010. P.C. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant and the Respondents. 2. This is an application filed by the Applicant/Appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to permit production of sale deeds which is stated to be relied as exhibits AW1/ B, AW1/C, AW1/D, AW1/R and AW1/F besides two Awards passed in Land Acquisition case nos. 398/1995 and 400/1995. It is the contention of learned Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant that the - 2 - said sale deeds were in fact produced at the time of the deposition of the original Applicant/Appellant whose evidence was recorded by the commissioner but however the documents have not been duly marked as exhibits in the course of trial before the Reference Court. Learned Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant further states that the said two awards have been referred to by the expert in his affidavit whilst giving his opinion with regards to the market value of the land acquired but however the said two documents have not been produced by the Applicant/Appellant before the Reference Court. He states that the authenticity of the said documents cannot be disputed and as such necessary leave be granted to the Applicant/Appellant to produce the said documents. 3. On the other hand Shri G. Shirodkar appearing for the Respondents has stated that said documents are not at all relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land. He further states that lands which are subject matter of the said sale deeds and awards are not comparable to the land acquired. He further submits that in case leave is granted for production of the said documents Respondents should be given opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. 4. Having heard both the learned Advocates, I find that in - 3 - the deposition of AW1 reference to the said sale deeds is mentioned in his examination in chief but however neither the xerox copy nor the certified copy of the sale deeds are produced on record by the Applicant/Appellant. So also with regards to the two Awards. I find that there is reference about them in the report of the expert who is AW3. In the facts and circumstances, I find that in the interest of justice, Applicant/Appellant shall be permitted to produce the said documents on record. Needless to say that the Respondents will have ample opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal to dispute the relevance of the said documents. 5. In view of above, the application is allowed, Applicant/ Appellant is permitted to produce the said documents. Application is disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J. vn*