The Municipal Corporation filed an application n in SAMP No. 1773 of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 27. read with Section 151 of CPC praying to receive true copy of a Layout approved by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad dated 6-12-1979 as additional document in the above SA NO.78 of 2008.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, leaned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the Special Government Pleader for Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Corporation have agreed to dispose of the Second Appeals at the time of admission. Hence, these appeals are taken up together for disposal along with the above SAMP.

SAMP No. 1773 of 2008

3. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad filed an affidavit in the above application and it is that in the suit filed by the plaintiff, they filed written statement specifically contending that the plaintiffs are claiming ownership and possession in respect of an area to an extent of 1836 sq. yards covered by premises No.8-2-672/B/2/1 in ward No. 89 and Block L, Sy. No. 192 of Khairatabad Circle No. X by specifically giving boundaries and filed OS NO.1549/2000 seeking permanent injunction wherein the Corporation filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs encroached the municipal park and started construction unauthorizedly and that the authorities have accorded layout permission for the premises bearing No. 8-2-472, situated at the Banjara Hills, Hyderabad which gives description of the part on extreme western side of the approved layout the park area stood transferred and vested with the Corporation. It is further stated that as per the sanctioned plan accorded by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the suit schedule property is a park and the plaintiffs are not entitled to convert the park area as residential one and to prove the same the sanctioned layout is necessary.

4. The above said application was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing a counter contending that this petition is not maintainable as prior to this second appeal, even there was no mention anything about the fact of availability of the said original lay out which is within the custody of the corporation and that the door number shown in the plan which is now pressed into service are different that there is no dispute raised earlier before the courts below as to the door numbers of the land, and as such the said layout cannot be taken into as additional evidence at the stage of second appeal it is also stated that despite several opportunities to produce documentary evidence in support of its case, the defendant corporation never choose to file the alleged layout plan before the trial court in suit proceedings or before the first appellate court. it is further stated that the layout plan, now pressed into service, does not belong to the suit schedule property and the same is sanctioned in favour of one Tariq Mirza who has nothing to do with the suit schedule property.

5. From the above, what is to be seen is as to whether the above said document can be received as additional evidence at this stage?

POINT:

6. Coming to the factual matrix of the case on hand, originally the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant corporation and their man restraining them from enjoying the' suit schedule property, and in the said suit, though the defendant corporation referred the said property as a park, but failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of their version and on the other hand the plaintiffs by adducing sufficient evidence both oral and documentary proved their possession over the suit schedule property. Even now, the plaintiffs say that the plan sought to be marked by the Corporation is sanctioned in favour of one Tariq Mirza and it does not belong to the suit schedule property. Further, in a suit for injunction, the question of possession of the parties as on the date of the claim will play a vital role but not the title of the partie