1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8403 OF 2009 Dharamjit Tayaba Nikam & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs Shankar Tatyaba Nikam, deceased through His legal heir : 1A Gyaneshwar Shankar Nikam & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Shri S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent Nos.1A and 1B. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C: . The Petitioners are the original Defendants in a suit filed by the Respondents Original Plaintiffs. The suit was decreed on 17th February, 2000. On 3rd March, 2000, an appeal was preferred by the Petitioners which was admitted on 16th March, 2000. In the month of August, 2009, in the pending appeal, an application was made by the Petitioners under Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for production of additional evidence. Documents sought to be produced alongwith the said application were the documents relating to medical treatment of the Petitioner and their Advocate. The said documents relate to the year 2000 and 2001. They have also sought production of two documents of the year 1941 and a copy of the judgment dated 27th October, 1994. The other documents sought to be produced are the certified copies of the revenue 2 extracts. 2. The Appellate Court rejected the application by the impugned order by observing that the application was made by the Petitioners when the matter was posted for judgment and there is gross unexplained delay in making the application. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners invited my attention to the averments made in the application for permission to lead additional evidence. He submitted that due to illness of the Petitioners and their Advocate, necessary documents could not be produced in the trial Court. He submitted that even during the pendency of the appeal, the documents have not been produced. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) by Lrs. v. Sardar Dastur School Trust & Ors., [2005(2) Supreme 23 ] decided on 14th February, 2005. 4. I have considered the submissions. As stated earlier, the suit filed by the Respondents in the year 1991 was decreed in February, 2000. The Appeal preferred by the Petitioners was admitted on 16th March, 2000. The present application was made in August, 2009. In the said application, the reasons set out relate to the period when the suit was fixed for hearing before the Trial Court. It must be stated here that in the application, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the same could not be filed from 3 March, 2000 till August, 2009. In the circumstances, the Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application as there was gross un-explained delay on the part of the Petitioners. No case for interference is made in writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J) ash