Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present regular second appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, affirmed vide judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby a suit for declaration claiming ownership, filed at the instance of plaintiffs/appellants (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) stands dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that one Tehal Singh was owner of suit property mentioned in the plaint who mortgaged 1/4th out of it vide registered mortgage deed dated 20.03.1957 in favour of Harbans Singh i.e. the father of plaintiffs No.1 and 3 as well as in favour of grandfather of plaintiff No.2. As per the plaint, the land was never got redeemed by the original owner i.e. Tehal Singh and thereby plaintiffs claimed to have perfected their title and become absolute owner in possession of the. Besides it, the plaintiffs also challenged an alienation made by one of the legal heirs of Tehal Singh i.e. defendant No.1 vide sale deeds dated 09.02.2004 and 25.02.2005 in favour of respondent No.4.

3. In response, defendants No.1 and 3 who chose not to appear were proceeded against ex-parte whereas defendant No.2 though filed her written statement, however did not continue to appear and was proceeded against exparte on 02.02.2012. Besides it, defendant No.4/respondent No.4 contested the suit claiming himself to be bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.

4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012, dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiffs/appellants inter alia on the ground that the old and new khasra numbers of the suit land could not be linked by the plaintiffs as reflected in jamabandi for the years 1950-1951 as compared to khasra numbers reflected in jamabandi for the year 2002-2003.

5. Aggrieved thereof plaintiffs/appellants filed first appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of Khatuni Istemal, Naksha Haqdawar and Khatauni Paimaish so as to establish the connectivity between the old and new khasra numbers. In the said application, notice was issued to the respondents by the first appellate Court vide its order dated 12.11.2013. Later, vide judgment dated 27.11.2013, the first appellate Court dismissed the first appeal filed at the instance of plaintiffs without even passing any order on the application filed under order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

6. While referring to the lower Court records, especially the records from the learned first appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the first Appellate Court failed to pass any order on the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; whereby permission was sought to produce and prove on record Khatuni Istemal, Naksha Haqdawar and Khatauni Paimaish so as to connect old khasra numbers with new khasra numbers pertaining to the land in dispute. Relying upon the decisions passed in case of title “ Jatinder Singh and another Minor through Mother Vs. Mehar Singh and others ” 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 253. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the matter needs to be remanded back to the first appellate Court as the evidence sought to be adduced in the appeal was very much relevant for the effective adjudication of lis and the non consideration of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., thus cause serious prejudice to the appellants/plaintiff.

7. On the other hand, counsel representin