-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 369 OF 2011 Piedade Fernandes Aged about 53 years, H.No.722, Ward Kossos, Chandor, Salcete, Goa. …. Petitioner V e r s u s Charlene Leitao, H.No.352/A, Mondo, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. …. Respondent Shri C.A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 29 th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, waives service on behalf of the Respondent. 3. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the lower -2- Appellate Court dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and, as such, the Petitioner was not permitted to rely upon the documents intended to be produced. 4. Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned Judgments essentially on the ground that the documents sought to be relied upon by the Petitioner are very much necessary for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the law is well settled by the Apex Court that such applications under Order 41 Rule 27 are to be considered at the time of final disposal of the Appeal on merits. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has disputed the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that such documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy. But, however, the learned Counsel, did not dispute the fact that it is now well settled that such application under Order 41, Rule 27 has to be considered at the time of final hearing of the Appeal. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and without going into the rival contentions of the Counsel about the relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought to be produced by the Petitioner, I find that the application under Order 41, Rule 27 dated 20.09.2010 is to be considered by the lower Appellate Court at the time of final hearing of the Appeal on merits. 7. In view of the above, I find that the impugned Order dated 15.02.2011 -3- cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. As such, I pass the following : O R D E R (i) The impugned judgment dated 15/02/2011 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Application under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. filed by the Petitioner dated 20.09.2010 shall be decided at the time of the final disposal of the Appeal on merits, in accordance with law. (iii) Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*