jpc 1 wp9167-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9167 OF 2011 Mahadeo Laxman Khade and others ... Petitioners Versus Sou. Shrimanti Balwant Todkar and others ... Respondents Mr. Sandeep Koregave for the petitioners Mr. Venkatesh Shastry for the respondents CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 20th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the two orders, first of the orders is the order dated 30th July, 2011 passed on Exh.190 and the second order is the order dated 16th August, 2011 passed by Exh.192 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1182 of 2000. 2. In so far the first order is concerned, by the said order, the trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for leading evidence and in so far as the second order is concerned, the trial Court has rejected the application for production of document i.e. Exh. 195 which is sale deed dated 18th July, 1991. 3. It is required to be noted that the suit in question has been set jpc 2 wp9167-11.sxw down for final arguments at the time when the said applications were moved. Therefore, in so far as Exh.190 i.e. the application for leading evidence is concerned, the trial Court has rejected it on the ground that both the parties have closed their evidence. In so far as as the defendants who were the applicants are concerned, their evidence was closed on 28th June, 2011. The trial Court has further observed that inspite of numerous opportunities being granted to the defendants to produce the original of the said agreement dated 18th July, 1991, the same was not produced. The trial Court therefore, in the said circumstances, did not deem it fit to grant the production and rejected the said application Exh. 190. 4. In so far as the application Exh. 192 is concerned, the trial Court has observed that the defendants have closed their evidence on 28th June, 2011 and it is only after changing their counsel, the said application came to be filed. The trial Court was of the view that the defendants very well knew about the plaintiffs' case as they were parties in the earlier suit between the two parties in the year 1990. The trial Court further observed that there was no explanation from the defendants as to why the production of the documents was sought after a period of 10 years of the filing of the suit and why the said document could not be produced earlier. In respect of the ground set out by the jpc 3 wp9167-11.sxw defendants for the late production of the document that since the document in question was executed before the Sub Registrar, Karvir, Kolhapur, the said resulted in delay, the trial Court has observed that no such endorsement was found in the document furnished to the defendants. The trial Court has ultimately rejected the application and on the ground that the same was moved when the suit was kept for a final arguments. 5. In the context of the fact that the original document was not produced inspite of numerous opportunities and also in the context of the fact that having regard to the unamended Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the orders passed by the trial Court in respect of leading evidence and the production of documents cannot be faulted out. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)