1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 4756/2007 (Pradeep Vishwasrao Gawande .v. Vishwasrao Ramchandra Gawande) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. Mrs. P.M.Chandekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.N. Ingle, Advocate for the respondent CORAM: B.R. GAVAI , J. DATED: 13 st February, 2008. *** By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 1 st August, 2007 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to adduce additional evidence has been rejected. 2. The father of the petitioner i.e. the respondent herein has filed a suit for eviction and possession. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the property in question was his self acquired property and the defendant-son was occupying the ground floor portion as a permissive occupant. The suit is decreed. Being aggrieved thereby, appeal is carried by the present petitioner. In an appeal, an application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 for production of additional evidence so 2 as to establish that an amount of Rs.1,03,040/- was withdrawn by the plaintiff from the savings of the defendant/petitioner. The said application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. Smt. P.M. Chandekar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the defence of the present petitioner is that he had contributed to the purchase of the property and that the property was not purchased by the plaintiff totally out of his funds. She submits that to enable the defendant/petitioner to prove his case that he also had share in the property, it was necessary that the said document ought to have been permitted to be produced as an additional evidence. 4. Shri M.N. Ingley, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the application. 5. It can be seen from the record that the petitioner has raised a specific plea that an amount of Rs. 1,03,040/- was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. It could thus clearly be seen that the petitioner with exercise of due diligence could have very much brought the said evidence at the stage of the trial. 6. In that view of the matter, no perversity is found with the approach adopted by the learned trial Court so as to warrant extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court 3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. JUDGE sahare