JUDGMENT :

This second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit. Sri K. Jagga Rao filed O.S.No.65 of 2002 before learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking for specific performance of an agreement for sale. On trial and after due contest, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 25.11.2005. The defendant Sri Ch. Lakshmi Narayana challenged it in his first appeal before learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada in A.S.No.215 of 2005. After due hearing, by judgment dated 08.08.2012 the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside as a consequence the suit for specific performance stood dismissed. It was during the pendency of the first appeal, the sole plaintiff/sole respondent therein died and his legal representatives i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 6 were brought on record in I.A.No.355 of 2008 by order dated 06.04.2010 and respondent No.7 was brought on record in I.A.No.455 of 2011 by order dated 19.10.2011. The present second appeal is preferred by those legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff. The sole respondent herein is the sole defendant before the Courts below.

2. On 24.01.2013 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law :

(a) Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 08.08.2012 holding that the suit claim is barred by limitation without considering the clause stipulating payment of interest in case of failure to get the document registered within the time mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 31.03.1992 and setting aside the findings of the lower Court that time is not the essence of the contract and time for performance of the contract stood extended on payment of interest and by the endorsement of payment of Rs.30,000/- dated 30.11.1992 is perverse, wholly untenable and deserves to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court?

(c) Whether the first appellate Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record in correct perspective and came to a perverse and erroneous conclusion by allowing the appeal A.S.No.215/2005 on grounds unsustainable and for reasons wholly invalid?

3. However, during the course of arguments in this second appeal on the question of possession of the property, elaborate arguments were made by the learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent. Considering the nature of the facts available on record, it is found in the interest of justice to allow the question of possession being argued and considered.

4. It is with reference to that question of possession of the property the appellants preferred I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. urging this Court to permit the appellants to produce additional evidence in the form of three documents, which are :

1. C.C. of amended plaint in O.S.No.20 of 2005 in the Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada along with schedule.

2. C.C. of the written statement in O.S.No.20 of 2005.

3. C.C. of the judgment in O.S.No.20 of 2005.

5. Protesting this prayer, respondent filed a counter affidavit and sought for dismissal of the application.

6. Learned counsel on both sides along with the second appeal submitted their fervent arguments on this application also.

7. The connection between the parties and the conflict between the parties is out of an agreement for sale, which was marked as Ex.A1. There is a part payment, which is found acknowledged on the reverse side of the first page of Ex.A.1, and the said part payment is shown as Ex.A.6. Since the dispute has come up to here and since the focus of arguments on both sides turned on Exs.A.1 and A.6, it is relevant to find out what this agreement contains and then advert to the litigation that unfurled before the Courts below and the findings that were recorded by the Courts below and then consider the substantial questions of law that have been available on record.

8. T