JUDGMENT:- Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 27/4/2011 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal whereby application (Exh. 60) filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence by invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner has suffered a decree in Small Cause Suit No. 46/2003. The said suit was filed for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. Against the decree dated 27/6/2005, the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Appeal No.45/ 2005. The said Appeal was posted for hearing on 25/4/2011 on which day, the appellant's Counsel did not appear. However, though the Appeal was dismissed for default, on the application moved by the Counsel for the respondent, the arguments of the respondent were heard on 25/4/2011 and the appeal was posted for judgment on 27/4/2011. On the slid day, i.e. 27/4/2011, the appellant, i.e. 'he petitioner herein had engaged a new Advocate, who, on obtaining no objection from the earlier Advocate, filed his Vakalatnama and an application invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce additional documentary evidence in the form of money order receipts and another application (Exh. 59) for permitting him to advance the arguments in appeal were filed. 4. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein has in the first appellate Court changed as many as four Advocates. At the time of filing of the Appeal, he had engaged one Advocate by name Shri F.S. Poptiya. Thereafter he had engaged Shri M.S. Gupta on 20/1/2009. Thereafter he had engaged Shri S.K. Oswal on 15/7/2010 and lastly he had engaged Shri Deepak Mohod, who had filed the application in question under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also pertinent to note that the Appeal was filed by the petitioner in the year 2005 and the application in question came to be filed only on 27/4/2011. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent landlord stated that the parties have been litigating for last about 15 years or so. 6. The said application (Exh. It is also pertinent to note that the Appeal was filed by the petitioner in the year 2005 and the application in question came to be filed only on 27/4/2011. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent landlord stated that the parties have been litigating for last about 15 years or so. 6. The said application (Exh. 60) filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the first appellate Court on the ground that the essential pre-requisites for filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been satisfied, meaning thereby that the petitioner was not able to demonstrate that in spite of his due diligence, the material now sought to be produced could not be produced by him earlier. The first appellate Court also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been changing Advocates from time to time and only through the last Advocate that the application in question came to be filed and, therefore, first appellate Court held that the indolence and negligence in the manner in which the petitioner was prosecuting the above Appeal was writ large and, therefore, did not deem it fit to grant any relief to the petitioner and rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 27/4/ 2011. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Adil Jamshed Frenchman deceased by LRs. vs. Sardar Dastur School Trust and others ( 2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 5 : [2005(5) ALL MR 326 (S.C.)]) wherein the Apex Court has held that the documents, which were sought to be produced in the said case, were necessary for a just decision of the case since they would have had a material effect on the case of the landlord of bona-fide need of the suit premises in that case. 8. In the instant case, as the facts disclosed, the suit was filed in the year 2003, which came to be decreed in the year 2005 and the Appeal thereafter against the said decree came to be filed in the year 2005, which is as yet pending in the year 2011. 8. In the instant case, as the facts disclosed, the suit was filed in the year 2003, which came to be decreed in the year 2005 and the Appeal thereafter against the said decree came to be filed in the year 2005, which is as yet pending in the year 2011. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an illiterate person, who is educated only upto 4th Standard and, therefore, in spite of the said documents being available, the same could not be produced on account of default of his Counsel, in my view, cannot be accepted. Though the appellant has signed in vernacular, the manner in which he has been conducting the proceedings disclose that he is aware of the requirements of law and cannot be said to be ignorant. The fact that he has changed as many as four Advocates is a pointer that the instant application to produce additional evidence might have been filed with a view to delay the proceedings and prolong the litigation. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is also not aware of the relevancy of the documents, which are now sought to be produced, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once they are allowed to be produced, the relevancy can thereafter be gone into by the first appellate Court. In my view, such course of action cannot be allowed to be entertained more so in view of the fact that the Appeal was finally heard on 27/4/2011 on which day the application in question came to be filed. 9. Having perused the impugned order dated 27/4/2011, in my view, the grounds on which the said application (Exh. 60) has been rejected cannot be found fault with in the background of the facts as narrated above. I do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order passed by the first appellate Court. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.