IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 664 OF 2009 MR. CHANDRAKANT S. PRABHU ... Petitioner Versus SHRI ARLINDA DIAS AND 5 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 16th October, 2009 P.C. Heard Shri Kakodkar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has been held to be the tenant in an inquiry conducted under section 21 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Courts Act 1965 and against that the petitioner has filed an eviction appeal before the learned Administrative Tribunal, Goa. In the said appeal, an application 20.04.2009 was filed for production of three documents which according to learned counsel, the respondents herein were also parties. The learned Administrative Tribunal rejected the application inter alia observing that "the proceedings before the Trial Court started on 29.01.1985. I find no reasons advanced for non production of the documents before the Trial Court. The appeal was filed on 11.11.2002 and the application for production of documents has been filed on 20.04.2009. The appellant has not explained the delay." Apart from that, the learned Tribunal observed that the said documents were not relevant for issues to be agitated. 3. Learned counsel concedes that there was delay but submits that the respondents were the parties to the proceedings, and as such no prejudice will be caused to the respondents herein. 4. The submission hardly merits any consideration. The petitioner had not at all complied with the requirements which are required to be complied to produce documents at appellate stage. 5. Considering the facts of the case, the reasons given by the learned Administrative Tribunal cannot be faulted. The documents were in possession of the respondents and could have been produced earlier. This was not done. This is not a case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition disposed of. N. A. BRITTO, J. lh/.