( 1 ) ca12882.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12882 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 11 OF 1995 Samarthakumar Shatrughankumar Ghidiyal .. Applicants & Ors. Versus Shankar s/o. Bhau Kamble & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. R.N. Dhorde i/b. Mr. B.T. Bodkhe, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2, 3A, 3B & 4.. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 06.09.2011 P.C. :- 1. The application is moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for bringing on record a document as additional evidence. Since this application is made rather belatedly at second appeal stage, the Court is duty bound to examine whether the document is so important that it would affect the outcome of the litigation. The appellants are original defendants. The appellants/defendants purchased the suit property from 64 persons. One Bhau was one of the vendors. Many years after the sale-deed, during the lifetime of Bhau, his sons brought this suit for challenging the alienation on the ground that the property which Bhau sold was ( 2 ) ca12882.10 belonging to their joint family as ancestral one. The appellant/ defendant took up stand that they purchased the land because of 64 owners of the land requested them to purchase it because it fell fallow due to numerous undivided shares in it. The appellants/defendants recorded evidence of their representative to prove the sale-deed. The appellants/defendants now contend that rather belatedly they found in their record a document which according to them is very important piece of evidence and would support their case. This document is an application moved by almost all 64 vendors to the appellants/defendants requesting them to purchase the suit land. In this application, they apparently reiterated the reason why they were inclined to sale the property. They mentioned that since they had several undivided shares in the land, they could not cultivate it and the land fell fallow. 2. The question is whether such document would really affect the outcome of the case. The answer is in the negative. This document probably reflects the defence that is raised by the appellants/defendants in the written statement. It also reflects probably the contents of the sale-deed and if the sale-deed is on record, this document would not make much difference to the outcome of the case. I am refraining from discussing ( 3 ) ca12882.10 other aspects of the case while rejecting this application. It would be sufficient to say that the appellants/defendants’ case would be decided on the evidence, which is already brought on record and this document even if kept away from consideration, would not make much difference to their case. The application stands rejected. 3. Place the second appeal for final hearing on 20.09.2011 at 2.30 p.m. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/ca12882.10