*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9504/2009 Bhagwat Vithoba Shinde and others. ..Petitioners ­VERSUS­ Sudhakar Shankar Shinde and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Surel S. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.V.P.Warunjikar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 16th November, 2009. PC:­ 1 This petition is filed by the original Defendants against whom the suit has been decreed. The suit is for perpetual injunction which came to be decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, Regular Civil Appeal has been filed by the Petitioners/ Defendants. During the pendency of appeal, the Petitioners moved two applications one for amendment of the Written Statement and second for production of documents on record. Rejection of the said two applications by two separate orders has given rise to filing of this writ petition. 2 The proposed amendment as suggested by the Petitioners/ Defendants is to the effect that during the pendency of suit, way back during the year 1992 to 2001, the Petitioners/ Defendants have transferred part of suit property in favour of the purchasers under the sale deeds wherein there is recital of transfer of possession and with a view to bring this fact on record the *2* amendment application was moved. The amendment application has been filed before the first Appellate Court in an appeal filed sometime in the year 2007. The property is stated to have been sold during the year 1992 to 2001. The suit is only for perpetual injunction wherein one of the issue was as to who is in possession. The recital in the sale deed executed in favour of the third party by the Petitioners showing that the possession is being transferred would not by itself advance the case of the Petitioners/ Defendants so far as the possession is concerned. It would be a self serving recital in the sale deed by the interested party. Though the said sale deeds are executed during the year 1992 to 2001 there is no reason as to why the said fact is not brought on record earlier. Taking over all view of the matter, the first Appellate Court has found that the said amendment is not necessary more so in the suit for perpetual injunction and in my view, rightly so. 3 The documents which are sought to be brought on record are the sale deeds which are purportedly executed by the Petitioners/ Defendants in between 1992 to 2001. The first Appellate Court has rightly held that the said sale deeds have no bearing on the issue involved in the suit for perpetual injunction and hence, proceeded to reject the same. 4 Perused the impugned orders, the same does not call for any interference. Thus, Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. (A.P. Deshpande, J)