Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2523 of 2009 The Allahabad bank ...Petitioner V/s. Shantaben Bachubhai Chauhan & ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.H.Shukla i/b.Shukla & Shukla for the petitioner. Mr. J.s.Shukla i/b. Vaibhav Mehta & Associates for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009 : 2ND MARCH, 2009 : 2ND MARCH, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I find no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Court below which has proceeded on applying correct legal principle. The Court below has observed that in the facts of present case neither clause (a) nor clause (b) of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code have any application. 3. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, case of the Petitioner is that the documents which the Petitioner proposes to produce were in the custody of the Respondents-Appellants and they have failed to produce the same during the trial. That cannot be the basis to permit the Petitioner-Respondent in appeal to produce additional documents. In any case,it will not be 2 be covered by clause (b) of Order XLI Rule 27(1) which enables the Appellate Court to produce or require any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce Judgment. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then relied on clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27. Once again no case has been made out that the Petitioner exercised due diligence and could not produce the documents or necessity for production thereof at the trial stage itself. If it is so, even clause (aa) has no application. 5. In the circumstances, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]