KRISHNA DHONDU DHANAWADE Vs. DAMODAR RAMA UMASAER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioners/original plaintiffs have impugned the Order dated 25th January, 2019 in Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 2009 passed below Exh.63 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rejecting it with costs, by the Learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Khed, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri.

(2.) The record indicates that, the Regular Civil Suit bearing No.19 of 1998 preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed with costs by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chiplun by its Judgment and Order dated 23rd September, 2009. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal of suit, the petitioners have preferred Appeal No.78 of 2009. In the said appeal, which is as per submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners is at the stage of final hearing, the petitioners intend to produce three documents namely certified copy of the judgment in RTS Appeal No.44 of 1997; a letter dated 27th August, 2018 issued by Talati of Village Omali, Taluka Chiplun and a certified copy of Mutation Entry No.817. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, said documents are necessary for final adjudication of the appeal and production of these documents will not cause any harm or prejudice to the respondents. In support of her contention, she relied on the decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Lakshman, 2016 AIR(SC) 3139 in Civil Appeal No.920 of 2008, decided on June 29, 2016 :

(3.) It is to be noted here that, the certified copy of the judgment in RTS Appeal No.44 of 1997 was very much available with the petitioners at the time of recording of their evidence by the Trial Court or rather before that. A letter issued by Talati of Village Omali dated 27th August, 2018 and certified copy of Mutation Entry No.817 upon which the petitioners intends to rely are being produced by the petitioners with a view to fill up lacuna in their evidence. Even otherwise it appears that, the said documents have no direct relevance to the issue involved in the suit filed by the petitioners. In view thereof, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case, as the facts mentioned therein are different than the case in hand.