Fraud vitiates everything, and deliberate omission to implead a party or their legal representatives in legal proceedings is condemned and can lead to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Court.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) challenges order dated 4.5.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar accepting the appeal of tenant-respondents wherein ex pane judgment dated 27.2.1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar was challenged. The Rent Controller in his order dated 27.2.1998 has accepted the application of the landlord-petitioner by proceeding ex pane against the tenant-respondents and ordered their ejectment. The ex parte order passed by the Rent Controller reads as under: -

"In evidence statement of Balwant Rai Tayal PW1 was recorded who stated on oath that he was owner and landlord of the demised property and the defendants were his tenants and the property in question was given to the respondents in the year of 1969 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month therefore, from time to time the rent of the demised property was enhanced and now the defendants were paying Rs. 1250/- per month which was also not paid in time. PW1 further deposed that the respondent did not pay rent from the period of 1.1.95 to upto date and stressed that the respondents are liable to be evicted only on this ground. In support of this contention rent note Ex.P1 and site plan of the demised property Ex.P2 were also presented. Thereafter, petitioner closed the evidence. The evidence of the petitioner is un-rebutted and un-challenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same after perusal of the documents. Hence, keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case the eviction petition of the petitioners, succeeds. The respondent are directed to vacate the possession of the demised premises in question within a period of two months from passing this order. Memo of costs prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."

2. Against the aforesaid order, the tenant- respondents filed an application which was dismissed on 15.6.1999, Therefore, order dated 15.6.1999 was challenged before this Court in Civil Revision No. 3238 of 1999 by the tenant-respondents. The judgment delivered by this Court in the aforesaid civil revision is reported as Subhash Oil Company and Ors. v. Sh. Balwant Rai Tayal and Ors., (2001-2)128 P.L.R. 82. This Court while setting aside the order dated 15.6.1999 had issued directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the following issues:-

a) Application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) praying for adducing of additional evidence filed by the tenant-respondents;

b) Whether the appeal filed by the tenant-respondents was maintainable or whether the tenant-respondents could be considered to be the aggrieved person;

c) Whether the appeal was, properly presented as the appeal was filed by the lawyer who did not hold power of attorney validly executed in his favour by the tenant-respondents.

3. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the documents marked as Annexure A1 to A11 with the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 107 of the code have to be taken on record because it was not possible to decide the controversy raised between the parties without proving on record those documents. On the aforementioned issues, the view of the Appellate Authority reads as under:-

"Firstly the scope of an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is required to be referred here. Section 107 of CPC enables an appellate Court to take additional evidence or to require such other evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as are prescribed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Principle to be observed ordinarily is that the Appellant Court should not travel outside the record of Lower Court and cannot take evidence on appeal. However, Section 107(d) CPC is an exception to the general rule and additional evidence can be taken only when the conditions and! limitations laid down in the