1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CAS No.294/2010 in Second Appeal No.286/2009 Shri Murlidhar Haribahu Paunikar Vs. Washishtha s/o Krushna Gonade (Paunikar) and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S. D. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mr. A. Shelat, Advocate for the respondents 1 ti 5, CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED :4/2/2011 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The civil application has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant who is the original plaintiff seeks to bring on record additional evidence by way of the documents which are in the nature of Deed of Transfer of plot in a lease hold rights dated 25.3.1986, agreement dated 18.11.1985 between the appellant and one Binaki Griha Nriman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Nagpur and Assignment Deed. In my view the reasons mentioned in the application by the applicant/appellant to file the said documents at the stage of Second Appeal do not commend acceptance. The application is bereft of particulars as to why the said documents were not produced at the trial stage and the first appellate stage. The case of the applicant that the said documents were 2 filed in some other proceedings and were therefore not available is also not substantiated. In my view, therefore, the applicant cannot be permitted to produce the said additional evidence. The application is accordingly rejected. Second Appeal No. 286/2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 16th March 2009 by which the dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 2012/1988 has been confirmed. The said suit has been filed for declaration, possession and perpetual injunction in respect of a plot being portion of Khasra No. 68/3 in Binaki Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Nagpur. It appears that on demarcation of a larger area plots came to be carved out being plot no.2 admeasuring 1800 sq.ft. i. e. the plot in question. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case that the said plot was purchased by the defendant and the sale deed was in respect of the said plot. The trial Court has discussed the evidence on record in detail and thereafter has recording findings of fact which have been affirmed by the First Appellate court. Considering the said concurrent finding, in my view, no substantial question of law arises for 3 consideration in the Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Ambulkar