1 WP 2207/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2207 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. P.S. Dani for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Gharte i/b Mr. B.G. Tangsali for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 26th July 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 2 March 2010 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Alibag, District Raigad, rejecting the petitioners’ application for permission to adduce additional evidence. 3. The petitioners are original plaintiffs. 2 WP 2207/10 Their suit for injunction was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioners filed an appeal in which they made two applications, one for permission to lead additional evidence and another for amendment of the plaint. Application for amendment of the plaint was allowed and the petitioners were permitted to amend the plaint so as to claim the relief of possession. After the amendment, the petitioners were allowed to adduce additional evidence relating to the amendment. Thereafter vide pursis (Exhibit-69) the petitioners closed their additional evidence in pursuance of the amendment. They thereafter appear to have requested the Court to consider their application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”). That application was rejected. The petitioners challenge that order in this writ petition. 4. Once the petitioners were granted 3 WP 2207/10 opportunity to adduce additional evidence in view of the amendment, they ought to have adduced all the evidence including the evidence on the basis of which they were claiming possession of the suit property. They adduced evidence and on completion of additional evidence filed a purshis (Exhibit-69) of closure of evidence. Thereafter they cannot seek permission for producing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. No ground specified in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code was made out for grant of permission. 5. The lower appellate court has given goods reasons for rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. No interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)