1 ca 3909.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3909 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2007 Nagorao S/o Santramappa Londhe .. Applicant Versus 1. Shivaji Ganpati More and others .. Respondents Shri R. K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prashant Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 05TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : . This is an application seeking production of additional evidence in the second appeal. 2. The learned counsel contends that the documents at Sr. No. 1 and 2 with this application i. e. affidavits could not be filed before the Courts below. The rest of the documents were part of the record of the proceedings in the Trial Court. Shri Ashtekar, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact, these 2 ca 3909.11 documents are relevant for determination of the dispute between the parties. They are relevant documents which shows that the present respondent No. 5 himself had accepted the nature of the property and as such, they are relevant for the determination and the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 3. Shri Prashant Deshmukh, the learned counsel for respondent submits that the documents are xerox copies which are inadmissible in evidence. So also said alleged affidavits said to have been sworn in the year 2002 and no reasons are mentioned for not filing earlier. The said documents are not relevant for determination of dispute. The application does not satisfy the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The documents sought to be produced by invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 have to be original documents which are admissible in evidence. Admittedly, the documents filed are xerox copies. Moreover, the application does not even whisper as to why the same were not filed when the proceedings were pending before the Trial Court or even before the lower Appellate Court. It is also not the case of the applicant they were 3 ca 3909.11 not having the knowledge of such affidavit. Moreover, as per the Section 1 and 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, affidavit is not an evidence. The other documents were part of the record of the Trial Court. In the light of the above facts the application is rejected. The civil application is disposed of. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 11