1 wp5928-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5928 OF 2011 Smt. Mangal Anandrao Shingade (Vadar) and another, Through their Power of Attorney Holder- Narayan Dhondiram Dhotre (Vadar ... Petitioners Versus Narayan Krushnaji Khankale and others ... Respondents Mr. S.G.Deshmukh, i/by Mr. Abhijeet Kandarkar for the petitioners Mr. Vikas M. Mali for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd September, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present respondent nos. 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs, filed an application Exh.89 in Regular Civil Suit No. 216 of 2011, pending on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Islampur, Dsit. Sangli for placing a document on record. This was done after respondent nos. 1 and 2 had filed evidence closure purshis and when the evidence of defendants was in progress. That attempt was objected to by the present petitioners by filing of an application at Exh.132. That application (Exh. 132) has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 1/7/2011, by giving reasons. 3. I have pursed the impugned order. In my view the learned 2 wp5928-11 judge has failed to appreciate, if the respondent nos. 1 and 2 who were the plaintiffs tried to tender document on record, without seeking permission to lead evidence, particularly when they had filed evidence closure purshis. Observations made by the learned Judge in para 4 cannot be accepted. If at all respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – plaintiffs wanted to bring the document on record, they should have applied the court for reopening the matter on their part, seeking permission to lead additional evidence and then produce the document. This Procedure is not followed. Therefore the impugned order required to be interfered with. Hence the following order. i. Order dated 1st July, 2012, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Islampur is hereby set aside. ii. The objection raised by the petitioner vide Exh.132 is accepted. iii. If at all the document which was sought to be paced before the court is to be produced, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 will have to follow the procedure namely, at appropriate stage they may have to apply for permission to lead additional evidence that is to say, they will have to nullify the effect of their evidence closing purshis. iv. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. v. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)