1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5493 OF 2010. Rahul Subhash Gargele -: VERSUS :- Subhash Nandlal Gargale and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 22, 2010. Heard Shri S.U. Nemade, learned Counsel for Petitioner. Challenge is to order under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code passed by the District Judge-I, Darwha in Regular Civil Appeal No. 7/2006. The appellant before that Court sought production of certificate, copy of judgment and also a certified copy of registered partition deed. Production was opposed. The Appellate Court has in paragraph no.13 found that the documents were well within the knowledge of the parties and were not pointed out to it or to the Trial Court. It has also found that the documents will be helpful in deciding the controversy and 2 for fixing the share of the parties. The question before Appellate Court is about the nature of the property. Shri Nemade, learned Counsel has relied upon a judgment reported ata 2005 [3] Mh.L.J. 249 (Special Land Acquisition Officer and another .vrs. Mariano Caetana Clarimundo) to urge that the documents not produced before the Trial Court when within the knowledge of the party could not have been allowed to be produced. He has also relied upon the judgment reported at 2005 [1] Mh.L.J. 426 (Purushottam @ Nana U. Sanyasi .vrs. A.N. Jog and others) to urge that direction to exhibit partition deed issued in the impugned order is misconceived, as partition deed is not a public document. The compromise between the parties is not in dispute and that compromise is already produced on record, however, the judgment therein was not produced and Appellate Court has therefore, found production of that judgment necessary. Certified copy of the judgment is, therefore, allowed to be produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. Similarly the partition deed is a registered document executed in the year 1966. The said partition deed was on record of suit which has been compromised and compromise decree therein and judgment is now on record. The Appellate Court has found 3 production of these documents helpful to it to determine the controversy involved. In view of these observations, it is apparent that no exception can be taken to the exercise of the discretion by the Appellate Court. Petitioner is free to demonstrate to the Appellate Court how the partition deed is not binding or legal in so far as he is concerned. Petition is, therefore, disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.