1 wp9021.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9021 OF 2011 Maharashtra Mineral Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. ..Respondents Shri V.A. Gangal for the Petitioners. Ms. Sonali Samuel i/by Shri Raymond Samuel for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT , J. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. At the out set, the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks the deletion of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the petition. The said respondents are allowed to be deleted at the risk of the petitioners. 2. Rule, with the consent of the parties returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 20th September, 2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai by which order, Notice of Motion No. 1514 of 2011, filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. 2 wp9021.11.sxw 4. The genesis of the petition lies in the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Government Premises Act, 1971. The said proceedings have culminated in the order being passed by the Estate Officer dated 25th February, 2005 directing eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question, which belong to the respondent-corporation. Against the said order the petitioners have filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Said Act. The said appeal is pending consideration of the Designated Court under the Said Act. 5. In the said appeal the petitioners filed a Notice of Motion No. 1514 of 2011 interalia for two reliefs which read thus: "(a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Applicant/Original Respondent to cross-examine the valuer of the Respondent on whose ex-parte evidence the impugned order is based. (b) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to permit the Applicant to submit his Valuer's Valuation Report in respect of the suit property." The said Motion was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and by the impugned order the said motion has been rejected. A reading of the said order discloses that though the said Motion has been 3 wp9021.11.sxw rejected, the learned Judge has not recorded any finding as regards prayer clause (b). In so far as prayer (a) is concerned, the learned Judge has observed that inspite of opportunity being granted, on as many as eight occasions, the petitioners failed to cross-examine the Valuer, whose report was obtained by the respondent-corporation. In the Appeal also though the Appeal was filed, on 19th March, 2005, the Motion was filed only on 15th June 2011. The learned Judge was therefore, of the view that no indulgence could be shown to the petitioners in the facts of the said case. In my view, considering the reasons mentioned by the learned Judge for rejecting prayer clause (a), no fault can be found with the said order, no interference is therefore, called for in the writ jurisdiction of this Court with the said part of the order. 6 However, in so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, by which the petitioners were seeking a relief to permit them to submit their valuation report in respect of the suit property, after adverting to the said prayer in the Motion, thereafter, no findings have been recorded in respect of the said relief sought by the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the said ground. In my view, since this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order in so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back 4 wp9021.11.sxw for de-novo consideration of prayer clause (b). 7. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the relief in effect sought is that the petitioners should be permitted to lead evidence, which in my view can be said to be additional evidence under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of the Appeal filed by them. In my view, the petitioners could not have sought the said relief without making a case for the same. Since the trial Court has also not dealt with the said prayer, by recording any finding in my view it would be just and proper to keep the issue as contained in the said prayer open and permit the petitioners to file an appropriate application for leading additional evidence in the form of their Valuer's Report. If such an application is made, needless to state that the same would be tried on its own merits and in accordance with law, by giving proper opportunity to the parties. 8. The petition is therefore, partly allowed by making the Rule absolute to the said extent. Parties to bear their respective costs. ( R.M. SAVANT, J. )