(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2011 Lalkhan Rasulkhan Pathan. .. Petitioner. versus Grampanchyat, Rasulpura, Taluka : Khultabad, District : Aurangabad, and 2 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.R. Borulkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, preferred by the petitioner, has been rejected by the learned District Judge-9, Aurangabad, vide order dated 12-11-2010, below Exhibit 10 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 72/2009. (2) 2. The contention in that application was, document was misplaced and hence could not be produced before the trial court. The appellate court has noticed that before trial court, some other plea was taken. The inconsistency in the plea has led to rejection of that application. Before the trial court, the plaintiff pleaded trhat though he was in possession of the suit property, his name was not recorded by the Grampanchayat and he moved application to Grampanchayat for recording his name, but that application was not being considered as his rival happened to be Sarpanch. 3. The appellate court has given valid reasons for not exercising discretion. I do not find jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order. 4. With liberty to the petitioner, to challenge the impugned order, after appeal is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises, the petition is disposed of. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp233