143 WP 1928 OF 2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 143 WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2024 RAVIKUMAR JETHAPPA KURNE VERSUS BHARAT KISAN MEKALE AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Joshi (through V.C.) i/by Mr. Prasad Pradeep Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Hrishikesh Sopan Shinde (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Neha G. Deshpande ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 28.09.2026 PER COURT : Heard both sides. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 06.01.2024 passed below Exh. 69 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2017. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who had filed Special Civil Suit No. 22/2014 for injunction. He was non suited on 15.11.2017 and he approached Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2017. He wanted to adduce additional evidence, therefore, application Exh. 69 was submitted under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is objected by the respondents. By impugned order it came to be rejected. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the earlier decision rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2017 on 26.03.2019 remanding the matter to the Trial Court which was subjected to challenge in Appeal from Order before this Court. It was disposed of vide order dated 02.03.2022 granting liberty to re-agitate the issue before the Appellate Court. It is submitted that in view of the liberty granted, application Exh. 69 should have been allowed. 1/2 143 WP 1928 OF 2024.odt 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order. He would submit that unless there is a permission, the additional secondary evidence cannot be led. It is further submitted that application under Order 41 Rule 27 has to be decided within course of final hearing of the appeal. 6. It is a trite law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter State of Rajasthan v. T. Sahani & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 619, that application under Order 41 Rule 27 has to be dealt with at the time of final disposal of the appeal and it cannot be decided at interlocutory stage, which has been done by the appellate Court, in present case. 7. The Appellate Court can take appropriate decision over application Exh. 69 in accordance with law at the time of hearing of Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2017. The propriety demands that the documents, which are sought to be produced be dealt with simultaneously on the merits of the matter. 8. It would be open for the parties to agitate their claim in respect of the probative value of the documents relying upon the judgments. This Court is not expressing any view as to whether the permission is necessary for leading secondary evidence or the documents sought to be produced are admissible in evidence. It would be the look out of the Appellate Court. 9. The writ petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned order and directing the Appellate Court to deal with application Exh. 69 independently, on its merits, at the time of final disposal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2017. The Appellate Court shall decide Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2017 within a period of six months from today. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 2/2