1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION Nos. 692, 691, 1125, 1726 OF 2008 and 37 of 2009 Eknath Khandu Ramoshi-Patole........Appellant/Applicant versus Ganpati Shripati Patole Since deceased through L.rs. Dhanaji Ganpat Patole & ors ........ Respondents. Mr. Umesh Mankapure adv. for the Appellant/Applicant Mr. Dilip Bodake adv. for the respondents 1-A to 1-C. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 20th FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The respondents instituted a suit against the present appellant for partition and separate possession by contending that the suit properties were joint family properties. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit by contending that the ancestral properties were situated at two villages one at Hingane and another at Gursale. It is also averred that the respondents were given properties at Hingane in oral partition, that had taken place during the life time of the grand-father of the respondent and father of the appellant. The trial court disbelieved the case of the defendant about oral partition having been taken place 2 60/70 years before and thus passed a decree for partition and separate possession in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal before the District judge and the District judge concurred with the view taken by the trial court and dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It is this judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, which is challenged by filing this second appeal. 2. The appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and produced various documents which are true copies of the certified copy obtained by the appellant from the revenue and gram panchayat authorities. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the said documents are permitted to be placed on record, same would go to demonstrate that the properties at village Hingane stands in the name of the respondent and thereby it goes to substantiate the case of the appellant/defendant about the oral partition being effected 60/70 years before. The said application has been stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has pointed out that most of the documents, which are revenue records were obtained by the appellant in the year 1988 and to be precise on 12-10-1988. However, for no just cause the said documents were not filed in the trial court so also before the first appellate court. Placing reliance on the date on which the certified copies were obtained by the appellant, it is submitted that the revenue 3 records were obtained by the appellant, in the year 1988 but the appellant chose not to place them on record of the trial court. The suit is of the year 1988 and the decree has been passed in the year 1997. The application moved by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 does not spell out any reason as to why though the copies which primafacie appears to be in possession of the appellant for a long period of time, as to why the same were not filed in the trial court. The judgment of the first appellate court reveals that some of the documents were tendered before the first appellate court but without moving an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and thus the first appellate court has rightly declined to consider the same. No document can be placed on record before the court at an appellate stage without permission of the court. The documents are produced after a period of 20 years and a prayer is made to consider the same which if allowed is bound to, then require a re-trial. The same cannot be granted as a matter of course. The appellant does not appear to have been acting diligently. A litigant who is guilty of latches and inaction, cannot be granted a further opportunity to try the issues afresh under the grab of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 by the appellant with a view to place on record the documents, if permitted to be filed, would support the case of the appellant as contended by the learned counsel. The learned 4 counsel has fairly submitted that if the applicaiton for producing additional evidence at this stage is not granted, then there is hardly any question which requires consideration in the second appeal. No substantional question of law emerges. Hence second appeal is summarily dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil applications does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)