ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Application for impleadment is allowed.

3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in RFA No. 1765/2005, we have noticed that the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the respondents by the Trial Court which had also been upheld by the High Court.

4. However, counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have sought permission of the High Court at the stage of first appeal seeking liberty to adduce additional evidence which is a map of the area indicating that the disputed land is a public road and in view of Order XLI Rule 27(1) (aa), the appellants were entitled to adduce such additional evidence at the appellate stage.

5. However, we do not feel impressed with this argument and deem it fit to reject it in view of Order XLI Rule 27(1) (aa) which clearly states as follows:

(a) ......... (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed,