-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2009 IN IN IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2009 Mrs.Anjali Balkrishna Uchgaonkar & Ors. .. Applicants. (Org.Defendants) V/s. Jayant Gajanan Pathak .. Respondent/Opponent. (Org.Plaintiff) ---- Mr. R.R.Salvi for the Applicants. Mr. Arif Bookwala, Sr. Counsel a/w. Gautam Mehta & Bimal Bhabhda i/by M/s. Apte & Co. for the Respondent/Opponent. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 08th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 08th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 08th APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. The civil application is filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for permission to produce on record additional evidence viz. a document of surrender deed of tenancy in respect of the suit premises executed by Smt. Sadhana Gangadhar Samant on 11th of March, 1992. The civil application is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. -: 2 :- 3. A Xerox copy of the document which is sought to be produced under Order 41, Rule 27 was already produced before the trial court by the defendant no.2- Mr. Prasad Balkrishna Uchgaonkar alongwith his affidavit of evidence. The trial court, however, did not consider the said document on the ground that the appellants/ defendants failed to prove contents of the said document as per the Evidence Act and therefore, the document was not exhibited. 4. The document in question is a Xerox copy of deed of surrender. There is no dispute that the applicant has not preferred any application in the trial court for permission to produce secondary evidence under the Evidence Act. In these circumstances, the case of the applicant does not fall under clause (a) of Rule 27 of Order 41. 5. The Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. (R.V.MORE,J.)