* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 759 OF 2003 1. Shri.Dattatraya Shankar Goud 2. Shri.Ashok Dattatraya Goud ...Appellants (Orig.Defnds.1 & 2) V/S. 1. Smt.Hirabai Rau Kumbhar 2. The Circle Officer, Kodoli 3. The Sub Divisional Officer 4. The Collector of Kolhapur 5. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent no.1/ Orig. Plff. .....Respondents.2 to 5/ Orig.Defnds.3 to 6. ======== Mr.V.B.Rajure, adv.for appellants. Mr.P.S.Dani,adv.for respondent no.1. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 17TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. : 1. The appellants are original defendants no.1 and 2 who have filed the present Second Appeal to challenge the correctness and legality of the order dated 7th January, 2003 passed by the court of 4th Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.186 of 1999. Respondent no.1 to the appeal is the original plaintiff and respondents no.2 to 5-original defendants * 2 * no.3 to 6. 2. Respondent no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.375 of 1994 for a declaration that she is the owner of the suit land being land at Gat No.512/2 admeasuring 3 hectare 46 guntha situated at Arale, Tal: Panhala, District-Kolhapur. This land was alloted to respondent no.1 for her maintenance on 13th July, 1972 by the government as her husband had died in the Indo-Pak war. Respondents no.2 and 5 were also similarly alloted land bearing Gat No.512/10 admeasuring 1 hectare 80 are situated at Arale. There is a dispute as regards land admeasuring 1 acre 20 gunthas situated at the northern side of the suit land. According to respondent no.1 the appellant and other respondents who have no concern with the land admeasuring 1 acre 20 gunthas had dispossessed her from the land. The appellant had also got the revenue records mutated to show that the land is in their possession. The mutation in the revenue records was carried out without notice to respondent no.1. The appellants in their written statement did not dispute the allotment of the land to respondent no.1 of the area claimed by her. They however contended that there is some over lapping of the land allotted to both the parties. By the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1998 the trial court partly decreed the suit and restrained the appellants from disturbing possession of * 3 * respondent no.1 over the suit land. Respondents no.2 to 5 who are government officers were also injuncted from taking possession of the land admeasuring 1 hectares 20 gunthas till the land is measured and area of both the parties are ascertained. This decree was challenged by the appellants by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.180 of 1999. The appellants contended that the learned trial court has committed an error in holding that the measurement of the land is necessary. However, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the appellants relied upon the measurements of the land taken on their application. Respondent no.1 objected to the same saying that this measurement was taken behind her back and cannot be relied upon. If one peruses the trial court judgment, it can be seen that the concession as regards taking up the measurements of the land was available only to respondents no.2 to 5-the Government officers and not the appellants. In that circumstance, the appellants cannot be allowed to rely upon any subsequent measurements taken to challenge the original decree. 3. Mr.Rajure, submits that the lower appellate court has disposed off the appeal without deciding the application filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which was filed for producing the documents concerning the subsequent measurements on record. As has been rightly submitted by Mr.Dani, the * 4 * application filed is not covered by any of the circumstances provided under Order 41 Rule 27 under which such an application can be filed. In any case, the perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned District Judge has considered the documents and held that the measurement contained in the application of the appellants after the decision of the suit cannot be relied and therefore the map cannot be allowed to be produced by the defendants in evidence in order to show their possession of the suit property. 4. There is no substantial question of law arising therein for consideration of the court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]