JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur (for brevity, "the learned appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.42/2019 (CIS No.21/2019) whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs (for brevity, "the plaintiffs"), the judgement and decree dated 19.01.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") dismissing the Original Suit No.165/2015 (Computer Registration No.147/2015) for permanent injunction, have been affirmed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant stating therein that they purchased the subject plot measuring 0.032 hectare, a part of Khasra No.48 recorded in the Khatedari of Gram Panchayat Bilothi, in an open auction dated 15.06.1991 with highest bid of Rs.3,000/- and obtained its possession. It was averred that taking undue advantage of its entry in the jamabandi still in the name of Gram Panchayat Bilothi, the defendant has threatened them of dispossession. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

3. The defendant in its written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint, submitted that the land of Khasra No.48 was recorded in its khatedari and was under its possession. It was averred that the subject property was never put to auction and the documents submitted by the plaintiffs were forged and fabricated. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed for.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed five issues including relief. The issue no.1 was as to whether the plaintiffs have purchased the subject property as described in para no.2 of the plaint in auction dated 15.06.1991 with highest bid. The issue no.2 was to the effect as to whether the plaintiffs were in lawful possession of the subject property and were entitled to the decree of permanent injunction. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court decided the issues no.1 & 2 against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 19.01.2019. The civil first appeal preferred there against by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 15.10.2019.

5. Assailing the impugned judgement and decree, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that since, while dismissing the first appeal, the learned appellate Court did not consider an application filed by them under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, the matter may be remanded back to the learned appellate court for deciding it afresh taking into consideration the application filed by them. He submits that from the documents already on record along with the documents submitted by them with the application, it was apparent that his father had purchased the subject property in the auction conducted by the defendant on 15.06.1991 making highest bid and since then, they have been in possession of the subject property. Referring to the reply dated 26.02.2019 furnished by the defendant Gram Panchayat Bilothi under Right to Information Act, 2005, a part of the documents submitted along with the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, he submits that since, no record of the auction proceedings dated 15.06.1991 was available with the defendant, there was no occasion for them to have produced the same, a