(1) WP 4715.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4715 OF 2011 Sk Miyan Sk Ismail PETITIONER VERSUS Rameshwar Tukaramji Lahamage RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.S. Nirkhee, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.Sangeeta Tambat (Dhumal), Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 12TH DECEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard. 2. The learned trial Court, after the closure of evidence had permitted the respondent-plaintiff to produce additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nirkhee submits that in view of the deletion of Rule 17-A of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, now the trial Court has no jurisdiction to permit production of additional evidence. 3. It can very well be considered that even during an Appeal or for that matter in a Second (2) WP 4715.2011 Appeal also, evidence can be produced by the parties, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is required to accept the same. Even after deletion of Rule 17-A of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, since it is merely a procedural provision, in a given case, the trial Court can very well allow a party to produce the evidence, if it satisfies the Court that such course is required to be adopted. (See - Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs Union of India (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344 paragraph no.13) 4. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] arp/