Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—This writ petition assails the validity of an order dated 5.4.1995, whereby the application moved by the petitioners, who were appellants before the learned appellate Court below, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence has been rejected.

Heard Sri S. A. Jamal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Moinuddin Khan and Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of resolving the dispute engaging attention of this Court in the instant writ petition are that a Suit bearing No. 124 of 1981 was filed before the learned trial Court by the respondents wherein the petitioners were the defendants. The suit was filed with the prayer for decree for demolition of the construction raised by the petitioners. Subsequently another suit was filed by the petitioner No. 6 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 which was registered as Regular Suit No. 134 of 1981 wherein the decree for permanent injunction was sought for restraining the defendants i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the instant writ petition from raising any construction on the land in dispute.

3. Out of the aforesaid two regular suits, Suit No. 134 of 1981 was later on dismissed in default on 13.8.1985 whereas the Suit No. 124 of 1981 was decreed by the trial Court by means of judgment and order dated 28.9.1991.

4. Being aggrieved against the decree passed in Suit No. 124 of 1981, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the learned appellate Court below. During pendency of appeal, an application was preferred before the learned appellate Court below by the petitioners on 24.3.1995 praying therein that certain documents annexed with the application may be taken on record. The said application was moved by the petitioners invoking the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was, however, rejected by the learned appellate Court below by means of order dated 5.4.1995 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

5. The sole contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 5.4.1995 passed by the learned appellate Court below is erroneous for the reason that contrary to the provision of Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no finding has been returned by the learned appellate Court below on the issue as to whether the documents which were sought to be filed alongwith application moved by the petitioners were required by the appellate Court to enable it to pronounce the judgment. Sri Jamal, learned counsel for the petitioners citing two judgments in Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) and others, 2010 (28) LCD 1345 and M/s. Gupta National Radios and Electric House v. Sagarmal Arora and another, 2003 (21)LCD 219, has very emphatically submitted that in absence of finding recorded by the learned appellate Court below in terms of the provision of Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court below cannot be permitted to be sustained.

6. Strongly opposing the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that in the wake of distinct finding by the learned appellate Court below that evidence, which was sought to be adduced by means of application moved by the petitioners before the learned appellate Court below, had all along been in the knowledge of petitioners since in the year 1981 itself and, as such, at this belated stage in the year 1995 appellants cannot be permitted to adduce the evidence, hence, there is no illegality or irregularity of any kind which can be seen by this Court in the order passed by the learned appellate Court below. In his s