ORDER

The petitioners being the respondents in RSA No.1915/2010, are seeking review of the judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed in the second appeal, allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.04.2010 passed in RA No.31/2008, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), restoring the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2008 passed in O.S.No.03/2002 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge Senior Division and JMFC, Hosur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and consequently confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Heard Sri. Prakash Timmanra Hebbar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Perused the materials on record.

3. The respondent No.5 as plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.03/2002, seeking declaration of his title over the schedule property and for permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court after contest. The defendants have preferred RA No.31/2008. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff was before this Court in the Second Appeal in RSA No.1915/2010. The same was heard on merits and as per judgment dated 14.12.2022, the Second Appeal was allowed as stated above.

4. After disposal of the Second Appeal on merits, the respondents therein have filed this review petition invoking Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC on the ground that there is discovery of new and important matter and evidence, which after due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioners and could not have been produced either before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court or when the Second Appeal was pending and hence, the petitioners sought for allowing the review petition and also allow the applications IA No.2 of 2023 and IA No. 1 of 2024 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 (1) aa (b) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission to produce the additional documents. IA No.1 of 2023 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the Review Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Order XLVII Rule 1 (1) (c) of CPC is aptly applicable to the present case and therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. He contended that the respondent No.5 as plaintiff had played fraud on all the Courts, including this Court, by producing a fake certificate, showing regularization of their possession and cultivation of the schedule property, when there was no such regularization. Learned counsel contended that in fact, the certificate of regularization dated 28.06.1978 produced and marked as Ex-P1 before the Trial Court is a rank fabrication by the plaintiff. The petitioners came to know about the fraud played by the plaintiff, only after disposal of the Second Appeal when they applied for grant of the documents during January-2023 under Right to Information Act and obtained the copies of grant dated 06.12.1955, made in favour of Sanna @ Sannaiah, who is the father of the plaintiff and the defendants. Therefore, it is clear that the property in question was granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff and defendants. But the plaintiff by concocting a certificate as per Ex-P1 approached the Court and managed to get the decree for declaration and permanent injunction. If the grant certificate dated 06.12.1955 now produced as additional document, which was obtained by the petitioners under RTI Act on 30.01.2023 is taken into consideration, it is clear that fraud is played by the plaintiff on the grounds and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff may have to be dismissed with cost.

6. Learned counsel submits that if