1 CA 13706.2010 in SA 137.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13706 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. A.S.Sawant, Advocate for the respondents. ............................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 03/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The documents sought to be produced are the copies of Plaint, Written Statement, compromise decree, registered sale deeds on record. The present appellant and respondent nos. 1 to 5 were parties to the said compromise decree. It is stated in the application that the said documents could not be filed earlier, because some 2 CA 13706.2010 in SA 137.2010 of the developments have taken place during the pendency of the proceedings i.e. after the decision in the Suit and during the pendency of the Appeal, the same could not be brought on record. 3. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the non applicants submits that the applicant has failed to show due diligence. These documents could have been produced before the lower appellate Court, as according to the applicant, the developments have taken place during the pendency of the Appeal before the lower appellate Court. As such, the reasons stated in the application do not satisfy the ingredients of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The documents produced on record are with regard to the other property, which was also said to be joint family property, of which the separate litigation was filed and was subsequently compromised. According to the applicant, the same is relevant for effective adjudication of the dispute. 5. The documents are not disputed by the non applicants. Even dehorse the aspect of due diligence under Order XLI Rule 27 ( 1 ) Clause B of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the said documents are required for substantial cause, production can be allowed. As the documents are not disputed by the non applicants, there would be no necessity to 3 CA 13706.2010 in SA 137.2010 prove all the said documents. More over, the said documents are part of judicial proceedings. 6. In light of the same, there is no impediment to allow the production of the said application. The application as such is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/CA 13706.2010 in SA 137.2010