1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4113 OF 2010 Ramakant @ Ramesh Rajaram Bhosale .. Petitioner V/s Rahul Ratnaprabha Lingras & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30th March 2010 passed by the District Court, Kolhapur rejecting the petitioner’s application for additional evidence in appeal under Order 47 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the application for additional evidence (Exhibit “C” to the petition) wherein it is stated: “These are the documents which have come in existence after the filing of the present suit. Hence, these documents could not be produced in the learned lower court.” Counsel submitted that since the documents came into existence only after the suit was filed, obviously the 2 petitioner could not have produced them in the trial court and therefore the appellate court erred in not allowing production of the documents. Counsel for the petitioner also took me through the copies of the documents which were sought to be produced. Most of the documents are of the year 1994 and 1997. Some of the documents are of the year 1998 and some are of the year 2002. There are also some judgments which are post 2004. 4. It is to be noted that when one considers whether the petitioner could have produced those documents in the suit, the relevant date is not the date of institution of the suit but the date on which evidence was adduced and/or the suit was decided. Admittedly, the suit was decided in the year 2004. Counsel is unable to mention the date when the evidence was closed, but ordinarily it would be in the year 2004 or thereabout. The petitioner therefore could have produced the documents which relate to the period from 1994 to 2002. No explanation is offered why those documents were not produce in the trial court, as such the District Court was right in rejecting those documents. 5. As regards the post 2004 documents, they are only 3 judgments. Section 43 of the Evidence Act lays down that judgments, orders or decrees other than those in sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant unless the existence of judgments, orders or decrees is a fact in issue. The existence of judgments, orders and decrees was not a fact in issue and the judgments do not fall under sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the judgments are irrelevant and therefore their production was also rightly rejected by the appellate Court. 6. For these reasons, there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)