1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4572 of 2011 Dinesh Jagannath Khandelwal ..VS.. Kundanlal Perumal Chhabriya and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. A.P. Gupta, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. C.D. Kaptan, Adv. for respondent nos. 3 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 19 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the District Judge-6, Nagpur, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for production of documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2] The petitioner is the tenant in the property belonging to the respondent-landlord. A suit was instituted by the landlord for eviction and possession of the suit property. The suit was dismissed. An appeal preferred by the landlord against the judgment of the trial court was decreed. The petitioner filed a petition challenging the judgment of the appellate court and this court, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, remanded the matter to the first appellate court to re- decide the issue of bonafide need by considering two aspects namely the stage at which the bonafide need surfaced and the circumstances in which it was pleaded before the trial court. 3] On a remand of the matter to the first appellate court, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of 2 Civil Procedure for permission to produce additional evidence in the form of documents. According to the petitioner, the documents were received by the petitioner from Nagpur Municipal Corporation after the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act. The application filed by the petitioner on 18.7.2011 was, however, rejected by the first appellate court by the impugned order dated 30.7.2011. 4] It appears that the first appellate court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for cogent and convincing reasons recorded in para 4 of the impugned order. The first appellate court observed that the documents which were sought to be produced on record pertained to the same premises on which the suit property was situated and the first appellate court held that since the petitioner was in occupation of the building in question on the same plot of land, he could not have wasted almost 7 years of the litigation for stating that he got the knowledge of another building standing on the same plot of land. The first appellate court held that the case of the petitioner that the petitioner became aware of the documents and the fact which were sought to be proved by the same only after receiving the information under the Right to Information Act was not digestible as the petitioner was occupying the suit premises on the same plot. Though the Right to Information Act came into force in the year 2005, the application was filed by the petitioner for production of additional evidence on 18.7.2011 and this shows that the petitioner had not proved that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, the evidence could not have been produced by the petitioner at an earlier point of time. Since the petitioner was residing in the suit property in the same premises of which the documents were sought to be produced on record, the first appellate court rightly held that the petitioner could not have claimed that he secured the 3 knowledge about the additional premises only in the year 2011. Since this court had directed the first appellate court to decide the first appeal positively within a period of six months from 19th of January, 2011 and since the petitioner was trying to protract the matter by filing applications, the first appellate court was justified in rejecting the application. The judgments reported in AIR 2010 SC 690 (Shyam Golpal Bindal & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.) and AIR 2005 SC 996 Adil Jamshed Frenchman(D) by L.Rs. Vs. Sardar Dastur Schol Trust and others) and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan