=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.154 OF 2005 NO.154 OF 2005 NO.154 OF 2005 Shri Sudhachandra S. Date ...Petitioner v/s Mumbai marathi Granthasangrahalaya and others ...Respondents Mr S.V. Pitre for Petitioner. Mr R.V. Sankpal for Respondent Nos.1, 3A, 4A and 5. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. DATE DATE DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 P.C.- 1. The petitioner - plaintiff’s application is at appellate stage for interrogatories and production of documents. The appeal is still pending for hearing. Earlier, the petitioner’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was rejected. However, the Court has already observed as under :- "It is an admitted fact that pending this appeal, the defendant / respondent has given =2= his property to a builder for development. If the defendant has got possession of any portion of the developed property, this subsequent even can be considered without amendment of the plaint. It is not necessary to make amendment as proposed by the Appellant. So far as claiming of leading the additional evidence under Order 27 Rule 41 of Civil Procedure Code, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant does not want to lead any oral evidence but he wants to produce the documents pertaining to the subsequent development, receiving the possession of the property by the defendant / respondent, pending the appeal, such relevant documents if any can also be allowed and taken into consideration. Anyhow, it is not necessary to make amendment to the pleading." . In view of this, the landlord - petitioner in appeal is already permitted to raise this issue by further observing that subsequent events can be considered even without amendment of the plaint. These subsequent events, if any, go to the root of the matter and if necessary, the Appellate court as observed above, =3= has permitted to consider them on their own merits. Therefore, rejection of such application for interrogatories at appellate stage and production of documents, with above observation, needs no interference. Petition is therefore dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA J. )