The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the conditions and limitations for admitting additional evidence on appeal.

Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the orders passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, on 7th November, 2000 in CMP No. 559/2000 in Civil Appeal No. 86/1999 (Parveen Kumar and others v. Prem Chand).

2. It appears that the present petitioners filed an application before the learned District Judge under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and prayed that the petitioners, who were appellants before the learned District Judge, may be permitted to lead additional evidence in terms of certified copy of the demarcation order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 14th December, 1999 alongwith the report of the Field Kanungo dated 23rd October, 1999 and copy of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24th May, 1999 and certified copy of Aks Shajra. For that purpose Record Keeper of the office of the Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, was proposed to be examined as additional evidence to prove the documents.

3. The case of the petitioners before the learned District Judge was that since the demarcation proceedings were pending when the case was decided by the learned trial Court, therefore, the copies of the demarcation report could not be produced. It was further stated that additional evidence was necessary for the proper decision of the dispute between the parties.

4. The application was resisted by the respondent. It was contended that the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for possession in respect of Khasra No. 1294/1 which, admittedly, belongs to the plaintiff-respondent and was encroached by the defendants-petitioners. The encroachment was to the extent of 20 square meters. According to the respondent, report which was sought to be produced on record related to land comprised in Khasra No. 1295 which has nothing to do with the land subject matter of controversy. It was further averred that the respondent, in any event, was not a party to those proceedings and therefore, the demarcation report sought to be produced has no relevance nor this report, in any way, will help the appellate court in deciding the matter more effectively.

5. Learned District Judge vide impugned order rejected the application. Feeling dis-satisfied, the defendants-applicants are in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. While dismissing the application of the petitioners, learned District Judge observed that controversy between the parties was about 20 square meters of the land which plaintiff claimed was encroached by the defendants-applicants and is comprised in Khasra No. 1294/1. Learned District Judge proceeded to observe that Local Commissioner was not sought to be appointed under Order 26 of the Code by any of the parties to the suit and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed on the basis of a demarcation report relied by the plaintiff in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1294. The defendants, noticed learned District Judge, instead of asking for the demarcation of the land in question through a Local Commissioner, preferred to wait for the result of the demarcation which he had claimed with regard to his own land. The learned District Judge wondered that how demarcation report in respect of Khasra No. 1295 owned by the defendants-applicants would help to resolve the controversy between the parties which according to the learned District Judge has no relevance to the proceedings before him, nor such demarcation report, according to the learned District Judge, would help the court to decide the matter more effectively.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the learned District Judge.

8. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent, at the outset contends that the revision petition is not maintainable as the impugned order of the learned District Judge does not amount to "case decided" within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. The con