1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2008 (Mahadeo Laxmanrao Kurhade vs. Ramji Shankarrao Kurhade & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 14, 2009. The appeal is by original defendant No.4 challenging the reversing judgment delivered by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 5.4.2003 after holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they have 1/7th undivided share in the suit property. It found that the deceased Shankarrao i.e. father of the plaintiffs have effected oral partition in the year 1976 itself. The trial Court also held that the plaintiffs could not prove that Will dated 6.12.1989 executed by Shankarrao in favour of present appellant was null and void. The lower appellate Court found that Will dated 6.12.1989 was not produced at all. It found that what was produced was only the certified copy of Index – 2 Register. It, therefore, held that Will was not proved and therefore, it has allowed the appeal. The appellant has argued before me that on the basis of certified copy of Index – 2 register, 2 the Will executed by Shankarrao could have been considered as proved. It is further argued that the original Will at the relevant time was at the office of Registrar at Pune and therefore, it could not be produced. It is further mentioned that the Will is received by the appellant in the month of October on 20.10.2008 and therefore, the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code is filed along with this appeal seeking its production. The appellant is not in a position to answer as to why the efforts to procure original Will from the Registrar Pune were not made during the pendency of suit or during the pendency of appeal before the lower appellate Court. The suit was instituted way back in the year 2001. Thus, what could have been done about 6 to 7 years before is sought to be rectified now and there are no just and proper reasons for such belated exercise. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in Second Appeal because the finding that Will dated 6.12.1989 has not been proved, cannot be labelled as erroneous or perverse. Second Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE *GS.