jpc 1 wp9250-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9250 OF 2011 Baban Bhau Pol ... Petitioners Versus Jagannath Mallari Dhekane and another ... Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the petitioner CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 13th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The order impugned is one rejecting the application filed under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the said application the plaintiff wanted to examine T.I.L.R. to prove a map. The T.I.L.R. was appointed as Court Commissioner and his evidence has already been recorded in the trial Court and the trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of the T.I.L.R. who was appointed as the Court Commissioner. 2. The powers under Order 41 Rule 27 are to be exercised by the Appellate Court in the event it feels any witness is required to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other jpc 2 wp9250-11.sxw substantial cause. The plaintiff had the opportunity to prove his case in the trial Court, however the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. The First Appellate Court was therefore right in recording a finding that unless the conditions mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 are satisfied, the witness cannot be allowed to be produced to adduce evidence. The trial Court was of the view that the witness cannot be allowed to be produced for examination so as to plug the loopholes in the case in the trial court. In my view, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the the First Appellate Court in the context of the well settled principles applicable to Order 41 Rule 27. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)