1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2364 of 2008 Jagannath Parsuram Karadkar & ors. Petitioners Vs. B.M.C. & ors. Respondents Mr.Bipin Joshi for petitioners. Mr.S.A.Sawant with Ms.Gunjan Shah for resp.no.3. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 7, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who have filed L.C. Suit No.3812 of 1997 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. During the trial of the said suit three witensses were already examined by the plaintiffs and the evidence was closed on 12/2/2008. Thereafter the defendants made a statement that they did not have any evidence to adduce. On or about 7/3/2008 the plaintiffs submitted an application at Exhibit 17 praying to allow the plaintiffs to reopen the evidence by recalling the order dated 12/2/2008 and by the impugned order dated 7/3/2008 the said application has been rejected. 2 . The trial Court noted that notice to admit the documents is required to be given to the defendants before framing the issues and in the instant case such notice was given for the first time on 1/3/2008 by the plaintiffs i.e. after they had closed the evidence on 12/2/2008 and the defendants had declared that they had no evidence to adduce. The trial Court held that such a plea at the belated stage cannot be entertained more so after the CPC was amended with effect from 1/7/2002 and the application has been rejected. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. If the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the final decision in the suit, Order XLI Rule 27 may still provide them a further remedy of bringing on record such additional evidence. . Petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL