1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 578 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra (thru.) the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar Township ...... Applicant V/s. Surendra M.Uppal & Ors. ...... Respondents ====== Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for Applicant-State. Mr.L.M.Acharya, adv.for respondent no.1. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 7TH MAY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. This Civil Application is taken out by the State under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of documents as additional evidence. The application is opposed by the respondent. 2. The respondent claims to be the owner of the suit property pursuant to a deed of conveyance dated 27th March, 1971 executed by the State in his favour. He filed a suit 2 herein for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for an injunction to restrain the respondents from disturbing their possession thereof. The suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that the deed of conveyance relied upon by the respondents to establish their title to the suit property appeared to be bogus. The respondents then preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree to the District Court, which has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The State has preferred the present Second Appeal, which is admitted. 3. The State desires to produce additional evidence of the correspondence of the year 1996 and copies of the FIR in criminal proceedings filed in the year 2009. Mr.Acharya, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that, the State could have produced the correspondence which was available to it during the course of the trial of the suit. He points out that the appellant had not even cross-examined the witness of the respondent during the trial. It is the case of the State that one Mr.Gavai, who was the Tahsildar had executed false and fabricated documents in respect of the government land purporting to create rights in favour of the third parties in respect of government land. It appears that after carrying out investigation into the complaint, 3 the State has filed criminal proceedings against several persons including the respondent herein. Considering the gravity of the matter, in my opinion, the State must be given an opportunity to produce the documents mentioned in the Civil Application before the court, so that the matter can be decided fairly. It is to be remembered here that the trial court had accepted the contention of the appellant that the deed of conveyance in favour of the respondent was apparently bogus. Hence, the order. O R D E R (i) The Civil Application is allowed. (ii) The appellant to pay costs quantified at Rs.2500/- to the respondents. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]