wp3422.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.3422/2011 Ghanshyam Keshavlal Fulsunge -vs- M/s. Shewalkar Developers Ltd. and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri M. I. Dhatrak, learned counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 21/07/2011. The above Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 16/07/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-13 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by which order the application at Exh.180 filed by the respondent No.8 in Regular Civil Appeal No.516/1991 for leading additional evidence by invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be allowed. The said respondent No.8 has been joined as a party to the proceedings after the decree came to be passed and has been so joined in the Regular Civil Appeal. The respondent No.8 claimed in the application that the documents, which he seeks to produce are public documents, which according to the said respondent No.8, inter alia disclose the persons in whose name the suit property stands in the record of rights at present and also as to who is in possession of the said property. The said application was opposed by the present petitioner on the wp3422.11.odt 2/2 ground that the same was filed at a belated stage, during the hearing of the final arguments. The trial Court rejected the objection of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No.8 has come on the scene later on as he was joined as a party in the Appeal. In my view, the order of the trial Court cannot be faulted with, as the respondent No.8 would have to be given full opportunity to prosecute his case, as he has come on the scene later on. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, since the Appeal is kept for hearing, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. JUDGE KHUNTE