Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case involves a dispute over land boundaries, where the respondent-plaintiff claims encroachment by the petitioners-defendants, supported by a demarcation report indicating encroachment (!) .

2. The trial court dismissed the suit primarily because the demarcation was not conducted according to proper procedures, and the report was deemed invalid. The court also held that the plaintiff's remedy was against their vendor, not the defendants (!) (!) .

3. The first appellate court allowed an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation, recognizing that demarcation was essential for a just resolution of the boundary dispute. This decision was based on the importance of accurate boundary determination and the need to prevent prejudice to any party (!) (!) (!) .

4. The senior counsel for the petitioners argued that permitting additional evidence or applications for demarcation after the suit's dismissal would be inappropriate, as it could fill procedural lacunae and lead to endless litigation. They emphasized that evidence should be produced by the parties and not collected by the court on their behalf (!) (!) (!) .

5. The respondents' counsel contended that demarcation was necessary for a fair adjudication, especially since the initial demarcation was not conducted in accordance with law, and that the court's decision to allow the application was justified to ensure a proper resolution (!) .

6. The court acknowledged that the dispute was solely about boundaries and that demarcation is crucial for the correct adjudication of boundary disputes. It emphasized that failure to conduct proper demarcation procedures should not lead to dismissal of the case but rather to corrective measures, such as appointing a Local Commissioner (!) (!) .

7. The court clarified that allowing an application for additional evidence, in this context, does not constitute filling a lacuna but is a necessary step for the just resolution of the dispute. It highlighted that procedural irregularities in demarcation reports should lead to remedies like fresh demarcation, not the dismissal of the entire suit (!) (!) .

8. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, endorsing the appellate court's decision to permit demarcation and additional evidence as a pragmatic approach to resolve boundary issues fairly (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , assails the order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurugram, vide which application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') by the respondent-plaintiff (Usha Gupta) was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a civil suit (Annexure P-1) was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff (Smt. Usha Gupta) for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners-defendants (M/s Engineers Mech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others). The case set up was that the respondent-plaintiff was owner in possession of land (fully described in the plaint) measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas (1/3rd share of land measuring 22 kanals 3 marlas), situated within the revenue estate of Village Harsaru, District Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') purchased by the respondent-plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 02.05.2007 (Annexure P-2).

2.1 Upon an application having been moved by the respondent-plaintiff, the land was demarcated by the compete