1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application (CAO) No. 809/2009 in Misc.C.A.No. 370/2009 in W.P.No. 1495/88 Yadurai s/o Pragji Sanghani (Dead) andothers vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust, through its Chairman, Improvement Trust Office, Sadar, Nagpur and another). . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale,JJ DATE OF RESERVING : 3.12.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12.2009 Heard Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. By this application the applicants seek to produce note sheet dated 13.4.1992 of respondent no. 1 which according to the applicants is relevant for deciding the review application. 3. The applicants have filed Misc. C.A.No. 370/2009 seeking review of the Judgment and order dated 13.2.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1495/88 dismissing the writ petition. According to Mr. Bhangde, the applicants came in possession of the said document 2` under the Right to Information Act in terms of the communication dated 7th April, 2009 of the Information Officer. According to Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants that document ought to have been produced by respondent no. 1. According to the learned counsel, the applicants are entitled to rely upon the said document since they have come in possession of the said document after passing of the Judgment and order. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mishra the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the applicants could have obtained the copy of the said document during the pendency of the petition since they were aware about the existence of the said document. According to Mr. Mishra, this court has dismissed the application filed for producing certain documents on earlier occasion and, therefore, no case is made out for permitting the applicants to produce the said document on record. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. 6. This court by Judgment and order dated 13.2.2009 dismissed the Writ Petition No. 1495/88 filed by the applicants. Thereafter the applicants filed Misc. C.A.No. 370/2009 seeking review of the Judgment and 3` order dated 13.2.2009. Thereafter, the application bearing No. CAO No. 287/2009 was filed by the applicants seeking leave to produce on record eight documents copies of which were annexed to the application. The said application was argued on 24th April, 2009 and by order dated 2.5.2009 this Court dismissed the application. 7. In view of the above, it is evident that when earlier application seeking leave to produce certain documents was argued the document sought to be produced now was also in possession of the applicants. There is absolutely no reason forthcoming as to why said document was not produced before passing of the order dated 2.5.2009 or during the pendency of the petition. We are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhangde that respondent no.1 was bound to produce the said document on record. The applicants were very much aware about the existence of the said document right from the year 1992. For the reasons best known to the applicants they chose not to produce the said document on record. Even after dismissal of the Writ Petition the applicants chose to file application seeking leave to produce eight documents but did not choose to rely upon the document now sought to be produced. In this factual background, we find that the application made by the applicants does not deserves to be allowed and the same has been made with a view 4` to delay the disposal of the review application. Moreover, this Court by a reasoned order dated 2nd May, 2009 dismissed the prayer of the applicants for production of eight documents mentioned in the application. 8. Considering the application filed by the applicants in the light of the aforesaid facts we find no ground to allow the application. Accordingly the application is dismissed with cost in favour of the respondent no.1 which are quantified at Rs. 1500/-. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`