The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which allows the appellate court to permit additional evidence in exceptional circumstances, and the party seeking to adduce additional evidence must prove the existence, authenticity, and genuineness of the documents.

JUDGMENT

1. The State of M.P. and another have filed this second appeal against the judgment dtd. 29/7/2016 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I Garoth, District Mandsaur whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed and also against the judgment dtd. 9/11/2017 whereby RCA no.3-A/2017 has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Bhanpura Link Court Garoth District Mandsaur. The facts of the case in short are as under:-

2. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land bearing survey no.619/1476 admeasuring 1.079 Hectare situated in village Shamgarh Tehsil Garoth District Mandsaur ("hereinafter referred to as the suit land"). According to the respondents/plaintiffs, this suit land was recorded in the name of their forefathers in the revenue record from 1958-1959. After their death, they are in the possession and cultivating the suit land. In the year 2013 family partition took place and this suit land came into the share of the family of plaintiffs. They applied demarcation of the suit land before Tehsildar. When the demarcation was not carried out, a complaint was made to the Collector in Jansunwai. The Collector vide order dtd. 03/02/2014 directed the Tehsildar and Revenue Inspector to carry out the demarcation. During the demarcation respondents/plaintiffs came to know that the Horticulture Department of the Government of M.P. is in illegal possession of the suit land by constructing two rooms illegally. The Revenue Inspector did not hand over the possession to the respondents/plaintiffs and thereafter the Tehsildar dismissed their application. Hence, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for taking possession of the suit land.

3. The appellants/defendants filed the written statement by submitting that they have established the nursery on land bearing survey Nos.618 and 619 allotted to them by the Government. The suit land bearing survey No.619/1476 belongs to the respondents/plaintiffs and they are not in possession of the same. On the basis of the evidence that came on record, the learned Civil Judge has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by declaring ownership of the suit land and directing the defendants to remove the construction and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the appellants/defendants filed the first appeal before the District Judge.

5. During the pendency of the appeal the appellants/defendants came to know that they had purchased the suit land from Pura Bagri (father of the plaintiffs) by way of registered sale deed No.398 dtd. 14/1/1956 which was executed on 21/1/1957 in consideration Rs.350.00. The Collector granted the sanction for the purchase of the suit land in Rs.350.00 vide letter dtd. 12/11/1956 and directed the Tehsildar, Garoth to get the sale deed registered. The amount of Rs.350.00 was paid to Pura Baagri on 21/1/1957, thereafter, the possession was taken and the case was closed. The appellants/defendants filed all these documents and copy of the registered sale deed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to the defendants these documents are important documents for the adjudication of the First Appeal and despite due diligence could not be procured while contesting the suit on merit.

6. It was submitted before the appellate court that the defendant/ department is the absolute owner of the suit land on which the plaintiffs have no title. These documents are liable to be considered together with Exhibit-P/10. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC that these documents were in existence during the pendency of the suit but were not filed alongwith the written statement for which no valid explanation has been given. The learned appellate court has dismisse