KBP wp1659-09.sxw : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1659 OF 2009 Narendra Mahavirprasad Gupta .. Petitioners V/s. Hassaram Khemchand Tejwani & anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr.R.P.Goyal, for petitioner. Mr.S.B.Naik, for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22 nd JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. The petitioner before this Court is first defendant in a suit filed by first respondent for possession. There is a decree passed by the trial Court against the petitioner and the second respondent original second defendant. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner. In the appeal, an application was made by the petitioner purporting to be an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The averments made in the application read thus: “Application on behalf of the Appellant is as under:- 1) That, the Respondents No.2 has filed his Affidavit and brought new evidences before the Hon’ble Court. 2) Therefore, it is in the interest of justice, that additional evidences of Respondent No.2 be recorded, it is prayed.” KBP wp1659-09.sxw : 2 : Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that a reply was filed by the second respondent to the said application in appeal. He pointed out that the said reply is supported by an affidavit of second respondent. His contention is that certain new facts have been recorded in the affidavit. Therefore, the submission of learned Counsel for petitioner is that a permission was sought to lead the evidence for bringing said facts on record. 2] I have carefully considered the submission. The application made by the petitioner runs only into four lines. His prayer is for recording additional evidence of second respondent. The petitioner cannot compel second respondent to step into the witness box and to lead the evidence. If some additional evidence has become available it is for the petitioner to prefer an appropriate application in that behalf before the appellate court. However, the application on which impugned order was passed was completely misconceived and the same has been rightly rejected. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )