1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2563/2008 (Shyam Bansilal Purohit and others vs. Sureshchandra Chisalal Sharma) ====================================== Shri Anjan De, Adv. for the petitioner Shri B.S.Deshpande, Adv. for respondent CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 18 th NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner/tenant has approached this Court challenging the rejection of his application under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. by Ad-hoc District Judge, Khamgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2/2007. That application by Exh.24 was moved with prayer to point out that alleged alternate accommodation on the basis of which his eviction was sought and accepted by trial Court was already disposed of long back. But that fact of disposal or document in support thereof could not be placed on record of the trial Court for want of appropriate guidance by the advocate concerned. The lower appellate court has not accepted this reason and rejected the prayer. Advocate De for the petitioner contends that petitioner tenant did not stand to gain anything by 2 supressing that document and had he produced it, the suit would have been dismissed. Advocate Deshpande for the respondent contends that the question whether there was any loss or gain to the present petitioner is not relevant at all and if the document is permitted to be filed at this stage, it will be to fill in lacunae. I have considered the controversy and I find that the document of vital importance was not produced on record. It is also appropriate to note that the petitioner/ tenant does not stand to gain anything by not producing that document on record. The court has not correctly noted the controversy. Looking to the importance of the document, the petitioner is permitted to place that document on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- by the petitioner to the respondent by 15th December, 2008 by depositing the same before the appellate Court. Accordingly, subject to payment of such costs, application at Exh. 24 is allowed. Rule accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit