V.K.Bali, J.

1. Plaintiff appellants succeeded in the trial Court and obtained a decree declaring that decree dated 18.9.1985 was not binding on their rights and Mandir Dadu Panthi Talao and, therefore, no rights could possibly be conferred in favour of the defendant-respondents under the said decree and the suit property was held to be in sole ownership and possession of the plaintiff. Consequent upon the declaration referred to above, the trial Court restrained the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) from interfering in their peaceful possession of the Mandir over the disputed properties in any manner whatsoever.

2. In an appeal, however, preferred by the defendants, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Thus, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, defendants have filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 559-C of 1994 under Section 107 read with Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to place some documents by way of additional evidence. The documents sought to be produced are, certified copy of Jamabandi for the year 1879, certified copy of statement of tenancy rights fo