1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9532 OF 2009 Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 ..Petitioners Vs Dr.(Mrs.)Nutan Ghulam Irani & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Mr.T.S.Shetty with Santosh Shetty for the petitioners. Smt.Neeta Karnik for the respondent no.1. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 19th November, 2009. PC 1 Heard both sides. Since the matter can be disposed off finally, rule. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith. 2 Advocate for the petitioners states that in the application dated 5.12.2008 made by respondent no.1, no reasons were given as to why additional evidence was required to be led. In my view, additional evidence cannot be allowed to be led for the mere asking once there is a full fledge trial. It would not be a correct proposition of law to allow the leading of additional evidence merely because the applicant desires to do so. Advocate for the respondent no.1 states that she may be therefore, allowed to withdraw her application dated 5.12.2008 with liberty to file a fresh application. In the circumstances, application dated 5.12.2008 is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. Consequently petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause-(a) as the impugned order passed by the 2 Revisional Court would not survive. If any fresh application is filed, the same may be decided on its own merits by keeping in mind the principles of law which are applicable for permitting additional evidence. Petition disposed off. Rule made absolute accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3