-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7859 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7859 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7859 OF 2008 Yashwant Govind Sakhare & Ors. .. Petitioners. V/s. State Government & others .. Respondents. --- Mr. A.G.Damle i/by Sanjay S.Gawde for the Petitioners. Mr.Hrishikesh Amembal i/by S.K.Srivastav & Narayan Sahu for the Respondents. --- CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 04TH DECEMBER,2008. DATED : 04TH DECEMBER,2008. DATED : 04TH DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order, whereby at the appellate stage the court has permitted the document i.e. map maintained by T.I.L.R. Haveli (defendant no.8 to the suit) to be taken on record. 2. The suit is against the government, alleging encroachment by them. The grant of this application at this stage, as contended, is without any justification as the map could not be produced at the relevant time, considering the dispute between the parties and -: 2 :- specifically when the governemnt is referring that map against the encroachemnt in question. I see there is no reason that the map which records prospective properties in question and which has evidential value just can be overlooked. For proper adjudication of the issue/dispute in question, in my view also it is material document which goes to the root of the matter. Taking all this into account, I see there is no reason to interfere that the impugned order, which interlocutory in nature. 3. Further, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to the Order 41, Rule 28, as the court may, that is the appellate court needs to consider is correct. Therefore, the appellate court may pass orders by giving full opportunity to both the parties. With this, the petition is disposed off with the above observations. (Anoop V.Mohta,J) .....