Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- The petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, vide which application (Annexure P-2) filed by petitioners for permission to lead secondary evidence with regard to four registered sale deeds, was dismissed.

2. Before the entire controversy is evaluated in the interface of facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to take stock of facts about which there is no dispute.

3. Case of the plaintiffs is that Khub Ram son of Nand Lal was owner in possession of the land in question which had been allotted to him during consolidation of holdings. The land interalia was inherited by Smt. Sarwan, defendant No.5/respondent No.6 his widow as Khub Ram had died after six months of his marriage. Nothing was heard of Smt. Sarwan thereafter but before her disappearance, she had relinquished her share in favour of Buti Ram father of plaintiffs No.1 to 4, Hari Singh father of plaintiff No.5 and Suraj Bhan father of defendants No.6 to 8. Claiming Smt. Sarwan to be civilly dead, plaintiffs claim themselves to be owners in possession of the suit land.

4. Defendants No.1 to 4, on the other hand, have claimed ownership from defendant No.5. They had set up sale deeds from Smt. Sarwan in their favour and claim the sale deeds to be valid and legal.

5. Per contra, stand of the plaintiffs was that the sale deeds in favour of the contesting defendants No.1 to 4 were result of fraud as those had been got executed in favour of the defendants by impersonating vendordefendant No.5.

6. The suit was decided in favour of the plaintiffs on 27.8.2002; but in first appeal, setting aside the said judgment and decree, the matter was remitted to the lower court as the contesting appellant-defendants who were claiming themselves to be bonafide purchasers, had not been given opportunity by the lower court to lead evidence. The suit was ordered to be decided afresh after completion of evidence which was to be lead by the contesting defendants.

7. In pursuance to this order of 20.8.2007 of the then Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, proceedings of the suit with the lower court were going on. Contesting defendants, now petitioners, had made an application for leading secondary evidence. Claiming the sale deeds as having been misplaced and further that the same had not been traced despite best efforts made by them, secondary evidence was sought to be led. This application was strongly contested by the plaintiffs asserting that genuineness and authenticity of the documents was in dispute and thus, the application was having no merit. Providing hearing on the rival claims of the parties to their counsel, the application was dismissed by the lower court. It is this order which is under challenge in this revision petition.

8. The petitioners are contesting defendants before the lower court. Their plea is that accepting their application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, made during the course of appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.8.2007, the case was remanded to the lower court with a direction for receiving evidence from the contesting defendants before making fresh adjudication in the matter between the parties. It is claimed that when certified copies of the sale deeds had been produced by the plaintiffs themselves in their evidence during the course of proceedings of the suit and the case of the applicants/defendants was that original sale deeds have been lost, request to produce secondary evidence should not have been denied by the lower court. Claiming findings of the lower court to be unsustainable in the eyes of law, acceptance of the revision petition has been sought so as to enable the contesting defendants to prove their case by leading secondary evidence of sale deeds which allegedly were lost and had not been found d