KBP 636-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 636 OF 2009 Ananda Tukaram Chorge and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Suryakant Aba Chorge and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr. N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioners. Mr.Bhushan Walimbe, for respondent No.1 to 5 and 8. ....... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 18 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2] An application for production of additional evidence made by the petitioners who are the original defendants during the pendency of the appeal preferred by them has been rejected. 3] By the said application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioners sought permission to produce the alleged deed of partition which was not produced before the trial Court. The said application was rejected on the ground that there is no reference to the said deed of partition in the written statement. On the basis of a submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a foundation in the written statement to the said deed of partition, this court issued notices to the respondents. 4] After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the written statement, I find that there is no averment in the written statement of petitioners based on any such document of partition. It is tried KBP 636-09.sxw 2 to be submitted that there is a reference to the partition in the oral evidence of one of the petitioners. However, in absence of any foundation in the pleadings, the appellate court was justified in rejecting the prayer for grant of permission to produce the document by way of additional evidence. 5] I find that no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )