1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7753 OF 2009 Uddahv s/o. Bajirao Pawar and others. .. Petitioners Versus Uttam s/o. Lahanu Waghmare and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 21st November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 4th November, 2009, vide which the application filed by the present petition for adducing additional evidence has been rejected. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of “Zilda wd/o. Antonio Bras Desa Vs. Karayan Kavlekar and others” reported in 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 439, in support of his submission that a public document can be produced at an appellate stage. 2] Te application for producing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 can be allowed only in 3 contingencies, as under :- 2 [1] that the court before whom the evidence was recorded has refused to accept the same; [2] That the party, in spite of exercise of due diligence, could not have produced the said evidence before the trial court; [3] That the court itself finds that such evidence is necessary for deciding the matter. 3] In the present case, admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that the learned trial court had refused to accept the evidence. The evidence which is sought to be placed on record is pertaining to a decree passed in R.C.S. No. 770/1998. Admittedly, had the petitioner exercised due diligence, the said document could have been produced at the stage of the trial. In so far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the learned single Judge is concerned, in the said case, the birth certificate which was already placed on record before the trial court, was not erroneously exhibited by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has found that at an appellate stage, the said document could be read in evidence. Such is not the case here. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for. The writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 3