JUDGMENT :

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 594/2019:-

1. This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 94 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity “the Act of 1963”) seeking condonation of delay.

2. For the reasons stated in the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1963, the same is allowed. Delay in preferring the second appeal is condoned.

3. This civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as “the learned appellate Court”) in Civil Regular Appeal No.33/2017 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment dated 02.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (for short “the learned trial Court”) decreeing the Civil Suit No.13/2013 filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) for permanent injunction, has been affirmed.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants (for short “the defendants”) stating therein that he was allotted the plot No.14 situated towards the eastern side of the National Highway No.11 at Didwana 22 Miles Chauraha by the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot in the year 1975 out of the land of Khasra No.2756. It was averred that he was residing raising construction thereon. Alleging that the defendants were trying to encroach upon a part of the his plot, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

5. The defendants in joint written statement stated that Patta, if any, issued in favour of the plaintiff is forged. Existence of the subject plot at site was denied. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed five issues including relief. After recording evidence of the plaintiff as the defendants did not lead any evidence despite opportunities, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 02.05.2017. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2019.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned counsel for the defendants submits that since, the plaintiff could not establish his title over the subject property, the learned Courts erred in decreeing the suit filed by him for permanent injunction. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2019 be quashed and set aside and the civil suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

8. Heard. Considered.

9. An application No.90579/2019 has been filed by the defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking on record the photocopies of the Jamabandi for Samvat 2031-2034 for village Didwana and of mutation register of the Khasra No.4395/2756. It is stated in the application that these documents are of utmost necessity to determine and to adjudicate the controversy involved in the matter. However, except making a bald averment that these documents could not be produced before the learned trial Court as the same were not in their possession, no reason has been assigned as to why the documents which, indisputably, were in existence prior to filing of the suit, were not produced at the relevant time. It is trite law that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC cannot be permitted to be filed to fill in the lacuna in evidence. As already observed, the defendants did not lead any evidence during trial despite several opportunities. Further, their relevance or necessity for adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter is neither reflected from the application nor, could be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the defendants. Moreover, only photocopies of the documents have been submitted alongwith the application without any explanation as to why original/certified copy of the same has