IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4798/2008 [Shashikant Desmukh ..vs..Ushatai Deshmukh & ors] ===================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE: 26.2.2009 . Heard Shri Chaware, Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondents though served. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Amravati in R.C.A.No.171/2002 below exhibit 26. Exhibit 26 is an application moved by the applicant under 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of Code of Procedure for permission to produce additional evidence. The application is rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Amravati on the ground that the appellant does not satisfy anything about requirement under order 41 rule 27 of C.P.C. There is no contest to this petition from the respondents' side. It is necessary to note that the learned Judge had observed in paragraph 3 of the impugned order: “in spite of due diligence, the evidence of concerned Sub Registrar, Chandur Railway would not be produced in the trial court and this according to him, because of his impression that the law is not required to be pleaded and established besides presumption regarding official acts have been regularly performed.” It is further observed in the impugned order : “after closure of the evidence by the respondents / defendants, the appellant/plaintiff represented by an Advocate could have moved the lower court to permit him to lead additional evidence. This is not a case that the appellant/ plaintiff moved the trial court, but he was not allowed to produce such evidence. In these circumstances of the case, as there is no contest or relevant material on record to compel the appellant/ plaintiff to be prohibited from adducing such evidence on record, this petition will have to be allowed. As such impugned order dated 7.8.2008 below Exhibit 26 in R.C.A. No. 171/2002 is quashed and set aside. Learned Principal District Judge Amravati is directed to allow the appellant/plaintiff to produce additional evidence as prayed by the said application without prejudice to the rights of the defendants/ respondent therein. Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. JUDGE smp