IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 416 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2010 MRS. MARIA PHILIPINA D'SOUZA AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus SHRI RUDRAGI VISHNU GUDE AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Coutinho,advocate for the applicants. Mr. Vivek Rodrigues,advocate for respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 28th April, 2011 P.C: Heard Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. filed by the applicants seeking to produce construction licence dated 28/8/2004 issued in favour of the appellant no.1 by the Village Panchayat of Raia. 3. According to Mr. Coutinho, the appellants are entitled to produce the said document under Order 41 Rule 27(1) (aa) and (b) of C.P.C. According to Mr. Coutinho since the Lower Appellate Court had non-suited the applicants/appellants on the ground that they have not been able to establish open space in terms the Town and Country Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulations 1989 framed under the Town Planning Act, the applicants are entitled to rely upon the said document in Second Appeal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of of the Apex Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRs., (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511. 4. Mr. Rodrigues, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 and 2 submitted that no case has been made out under Order 41 Rule 27 by the applicants to produce the said document at this stage. 5. Having heard the learned cousnel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that no case for production of the document at this stage under Order 41 Rule 27 1 (aa) and (b) C.P.C has been made out by the applicants. The document is of the year 2004 and was in possession of the applicants. The suit was decided in the year 2009 and the appeal was disposed of in the year 2010. The applicants had sufficient opportunity to produce the said document either in the Trial Court or in the Lower Appellate Court and the applicants having not availed of the said opportunity at appropriate time, I am not inclined to allow the applicants to produce the said document at this stage. 6. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-