1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6392 OF 2011 Natha Pandurang Tarle ...Petitioner Versus Sou Mangal @ Laxmi A. Asabe ...Respondent Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 7th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 1998 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur, came to be decided against the petitioner and other defendants on 2nd February, 2006. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner and other persons challenged the said judgment and decree dated 2nd February, 2006 by filing Civil Appeal No.25 of 2006. In the said appeal the petitioner filed application at Exhibit 20 praying that certain documents which were not marked as Exhibit by the learned trial Judge should be marked in appeal proceeding first. 2 2. The District Judge, Pandharpur, by Order dated 21st March, 2011 kept the said application pending and passed an order thereon that the said application will be decided at the time of judgment. This Order dated 21st March, 2011 below Exhibit 20 is challenged in this petition. After having perused the aforesaid order dated 21st March, 2011 I am not inclined to observe that the learned District Judge, Pandharpur took correct view of the matter and since the said application is not finally decided this petition could not have been filed so as to challenge the order dated 21st March, 2011. I am sure that the learned District Judge, Pandharpur shall hear the petitioner on the submission advanced by him in terms of application at Exhibit 20. This disposes of petition qua application at Exhibit 20. 3. Petitioner filed application at Exhibit 21 in the aforesaid appeal No. 25 of 2006 that certain documents in the nature of 7 x 12 extract were not produced before the learned Trial Judge in the course of trial and therefore the same be permitted to be produced in the appeal court. This application at Exhibit 21 was dismissed by order dated 21st March, 2011. The petitioner has challenged this order. 3 4. I have perused the said order. The view taken by the learned District Judge, Pandharpur is right. The documents which are sought to be produced through Exhibit 21 are in the nature of 7 x 12 extract. Looking to the nature of documents, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner that those documents were not available to him in the course of trial. The learned Judge has considered the point raised before him through Exhibit 21 and has rightly passed the order. I do not see any reason to interfere in the order dated 21.3.2011 below Exhibit 21. Petition is therefore required to be dismissed so far as this application below Exhibit 21 in Civil Appeal No.25 of 2008. 5. In view of the above, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)