1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4554 OF 2009 (Suresh Vithalrao Meshram and another .v. Bhavik Nathuji Ramteke) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri C.N. Funde, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Shri A.J. Khan, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 15TH MARCH, 2010. Heard. Civil Application is rejected. Reasons to follow. JUDGE *rrg. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4554 OF 2009 (Suresh Vithalrao Meshram and another .v. Bhavik Nathuji Ramteke) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri C.N. Funde, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Shri A.J. Khan, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 15TH MARCH, 2010. Heard. By the present application, the applicants/petitioners pray this Court to permit to bring subsequent facts on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were certain facts namely cancellation of one alleged relinquishment deed and sale deed of relinquished portion executed by the brother and sister of the petitioner No.1 in his favour. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of these facts and these facts came within the knowledge of the petitioners after considerable lapse of time. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not the case that the petitioners were not aware of the facts and subsequently made aware of the facts. The learned Counsel, referring to the dates namely that the Regular Civil Suit was filed on 20.01.2005 and was decided on 11.09.2007 and by referring to the relinquishment deed which is placed on paper book at Annexure-R1 at page 69 dated 25.07.2005, submitted that considering the date of relinquishment deed, it can be safely said that in spite of the knowledge of the relinquishment deed dated 25.07.2005, the petitioners had kept mum for more than a year and as such the petitioners cannot say that they were not 3 aware of the said document. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the sale deed which is at page 84 of the paper book bears photograph and the thumb impression of the petitioner No.2 also falsifies the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of the document. He further submitted that this is a case where the petitioners have not approached to the Court with clean hands and withhold the vital document relevant to the litigation. To substantiate his claim, the learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. .v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others (reported in AIR 1994 SC 853). I find considerable merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent. Considering the document and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, in my opinion, there is no merit in the application and accordingly the same is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.