1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3127 OF 2010. Smt. Hiwakabai M. Meshram and another -: VERSUS :- Smt. Pushpalatabai R. Chokhandre and another. 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. DATED : JULY 14, 2010. Heard Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned counsel for petitioners. Petitioners/defendants have questioned rejection of prayer for amendment to the Written Statement and rejection of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the Adhoc District Judge -2, Nagpur. Contention is, documents signed by the plaintiffs/ respondents in 1997 were suppressed by them, and though the documents were supplied by the petitioners to their counsel, the counsel did not produce the same before the Trial Court. 2 Shri Mohokar, learned counsel states that non use of the document came to light only when the counsel was changed. With his assistance I have perused the papers. The suit as filed was for partition and separate possession. The importance of documents therefore, is apparent. However, the present petitioners filed appeal in the year 2003 and in that appeal, the applications are moved in the year 2009. The Appellate Court has found the reasons pressed into service insufficient to allow the amendment or to allow production of documents. Shri Mohokar, learned counsel further contends that later sub-clauses of Order 41 Rule 27 of the code of Civil Procedure are not looked into by the Appellate Court, as there was substantial cause for non production of the documents. He also wants to rely on certain judgments to substantiate his contentions. I do not find any thing wrong with the appreciation of the controversy by the Appellate Court. It is to be noted that the documents allegedly in existence since April, 1997 on the basis of which the petitioners claim to have obtained mutation in revenue records are being produced before the appellate Court for the first time in the 3 year 2009. The Writ Petition is therefore, rejected. However, petitioners are at liberty to challenge both the orders after final adjudication of the appeal, if occasion therefor arises. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.