{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.28 OF 2011 Namdeo s/o Eknathrao Pund, died and another Appellant Versus Smt.Shantabai w/o Suryaji Pund Respondent Mr.B.A.Dhengle, advocate for the appellant. Mr.Amol Gandhi, advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 16 th March, 2011 PER COURT: 1 The appellant has challenged the order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2003, passed by Principal District Judge, Nanded, dated 30.10.2010. While allowing the appeal presented by Respondent – original plaintiff, the appellate Court was pleased to direct remittance of the matter back to the trial Court for re-trial by framing additional issues / recasting the issues, in accordance with the reasons recorded in the judgment. 2 The Respondent – widow of brother of original plaintiff no.1 presented a suit claiming declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. The trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to {2} establish her case and as such, dismissed the suit. Original plaintiff – respondent herein presented an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the Principal District Judge, Nanded. An application was tendered by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permitting her to place on record additional evidence. The plaintiff was permitted to place on record additional evidence in the form of revenue documents to establish her possession over the suit property since 1960-61 till 1973-74. Apart from the copies of revenue documents, there are certain other documents, which are permitted to be placed on record by the plaintiff. An objection is raised by the defendant contending that some of the documents placed on record by the plaintiff are post decision documents and as such, those cannot be considered. 3 The appellant herein shall have liberty to raise appropriate objection in that regard before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court has also observed in the judgment that there is no evidence as to how the defendants have acquired interest in the property. It is observed in the judgment that there is no record to substantiate the case of the defendants that the property was allotted to them by Eknath, the grand father of defendant no.2 and father of defendant no.1 Namdev. The decision of the High Court also does not give an indication that the property was allotted to defendant no.1 by deceased Eknath. A liberty even to defendants was also given to establish their case in that behalf. {3} 4 On consideration of the reasons recorded by the first appellate Court, I am convinced that no interference is called for in the instant appeal. There would be no prejudice to the appellants – original defendants if the order passed by the first appellate Court is maintained, however, it would serve the ends of justice, as the Respondent – plaintiff, widow of deceased brother of defendant no.1, is extended an opportunity to lead further evidence in the matter to establish her case. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is called for. 5 Appeal from Order, therefore, stands dismissed. Civil Application No.1369 of 2011 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/ao2811