: 1 : 6774-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6774 OF 2011 Dnyanoba Govind Chandere & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Namdev Govind Chandere & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. J. Shekhar i/b M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for the petitioners ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioners succeeded in partition suit being R.C. Suit No.1797 of 1995 filed by the predecessors of the petitioners in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, of course partly. The petitioners filed Appeal No.73 of 2004 in the District Court, Pune in the year 2004. In February, 2011 i.e. after about 7 years of the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application for adducing additional evidence by production of certain documents by utilizing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. This application has been rejected by the learned District : 2 : 6774-11-wp=.sxw Judge-1, Pune by order dated 17th June, 2011. 2. I have perused the application below Exh.104 as also the impugned order. The suit came to be decreed in the year 2003 being Suit of 1995. The Civil Appeal was filed in the year 2004 and the aforesaid application was made practically after 7 years. In order to request that the documents by way of additional evidence be taken on record, it was necessary for the petitioners to state in the application at Exh.104 that the petitioners came to know about the said fact of execution of the various documents on what date. The petitioners have obtained certified copies of the document from the Sub-Registrar of Assurance. This goes to show that petitioners did received information about the documents. Thereafter, they procured the documents. Since the application is silent as to the date on which the petitioners came to know about the transaction, the stand of the petitioners that they were unaware of the documents at the stage of hearing of the suit is required to be disbelieved. It is required to be noted that the suit was filed in the year 1995 and it came to be decreed in 2003. The appeal came to be filed in 2004 and this application was filed in the year 2011. : 3 : 6774-11-wp=.sxw 3. In my view, the learned District Judge-1, Pune has ultimately arrived at proper conclusion so as to reject the application. No interference is required in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)