1 WP1369/11with1121/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1369 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1121 OF 2011 Sugrabee Sandushah and others Petitioners V E R S U S Uttam s/o Kaduba Jarare Respondent Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, Adv h/f Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 8th July, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Both these writ petitions can be decided by this common order. 2. These writ petitions are filed against the orders dated 13th January, 2011, passed by the learned District Judge – 8, Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 296 of 2007. These orders were passed in favour of respondent / appellant. The petitioner is the respondent in the appeal. The petitioner had filed suit for possession against the respondent. Suit was decreed. Therefore, the appeal was filed. The respondent all along took a defence that one Sandushah had agreed to sell the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share to them way back in 1974 and had put them in possession of the suit land. He also made reference to the consolidation scheme being implemented in the area and he had gone before the authorities etc. While the suit was tried, the agreement allegedly executed by Sandushah was not before the Court. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent / appellant 2 WP1369/11with1121/11 moved the present application under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. seeking permission to produce additional evidence on record. He said that the original agreement / sauda pawti is now found when he made search in the office of consolidation scheme. After getting the original document, he made the present application. The learned Judge allowed this application and even allowed him to amend the written statement suitably. These two orders are being challenged. 3. Having gone through the reasoning recorded by the learned District Judge – 8, Aurangabad, I find no error in it. The learned Judge carefully went through the case of the respondent / appellant before passing the impugned orders. The learned Judge held on facts that the additional evidence was certainly beyond the control of the respondent / appellant and in spite of due diligence, was not available when the suit was tried. I am not inclined to disturb the impugned orders. In view of above, both writ petitions stand dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp1369,1121/11/8/7/11