The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C regarding the admissibility of additional evidence in the appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have invoked the Supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court enshrined in Article 227 of the Constitution of India while seeking quashment of order dated 10.01.2014 (for short “the impugned order”) passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Jammu (for short “the appellate court”) upon an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C by the petitioners herein for leading additional evidence in the appeal filed by the petitioners herein arising out of judgment and decree dated 13.04.2011 passed by the court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu (for short “the trial court”) in civil suit titled as “Kuldeep Singh Vs. Gulab Singh and Ors.”

2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the plaintiff-respondent herein obtained a judgment and decree dated 13.04.2011 in the suit (supra) for permanent in injunction filed against the defendants-petitioners in respect of land measuring 02 Marlas covered under Survey No. 91 min Khata No. 55 Khewat No. 27 situated at Mud Tehsil and District Jammu.

3. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2011, the defendants-petitioners herein preferred civil first appeal before the appellate court and during its pendency filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C for leading additional evidence stating therein that in the suit during its trial, both the plaintiff as well as defendants led their respective evidence, however, the plaintiff-respondent herein did not prove the proper description and location of the land in question being subject matter of the suit claimed to have been purchased by him from one Vijay Kumar through sale deed dated 30.11.2004 and that instead one Lal Chand Gandotra from whom the father of the defendants-petitioners herein purchased the land in dispute had deposed before the trial court while appearing as the witness of the defendants-petitioners herein that he had purchased the land in question from one Sardu Ram Batwal in the year 1982 where he was running a school and upon purchase of another land for School, he sold the land in question to the father of the defendants-petitioners herein where they started construction of shops, but could not complete the same and that the said statement of Lal Chand Gandotra came to be coraborated by Vijay Kumar who had sold the land in question to the plaintiff-respondent herein and that the trial court decided issues (1) & (3) together in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein holding the plaintiff-respondent herein to be in possession of the land in question on the basis of sale deed which was never proved and exhibited and that the plaintiff-respondent herein failed to get the land in question demarcated by the revenue authorities despite having filed a suit thereto before Director Land Records inasmuch as an application for demarcation of the land in dispute and that the appellants-petitioners herein could not produce the revenue officials to prove that the land in question does not fall in Survey No. 91 but falls under Survey Nos. 92 & 97 and, thus, additional evidence for establishing the said fact is necessitated which evidence would in the process enable the court to pronounce judgment as the judgment of the trial court suffers from inherent lacuna and defects.

4. The appellate court upon considering the said application filed by the appellants-petitioners herein after inviting objections from the plaintiff-respondent herein in terms of the impugned order dismissed the same holding that the application does not fall within the purview of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C for adducing additional evidence.

5. The petitioners herein being appellants before the appellate court have questioned the impugned order on multiple grounds fundamentally on the ground that the impugned order passed by the appellate court on the face of it is incorrect having been passed without, application of mind and going through the material on record overlooking the law and the facts, thus, in the process having resulted