SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY,J. - (1.) Petitioners were defendants in a Suit No.506 of 1987 filed by the respondent which was dismissed by order dated 15.3.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura. Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9.9.2019 whereby the Additional District Judge, Court No.06, Mathura has allowed the Application no.16 C [under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)] filed by the respondent in the Civil Appeal No.62 of 2013, preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2013.
(2.) The facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are as follows :- (i) Plaintiff/respondent had filed the Original Suit No.506 of 1987 seeking relief of eviction and possession of suit property from the defendant/petitioner and to give vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants/petitioners to the plaintiffs/respondents. (ii) In the said suit, petitioners/defendants had filed written statement. Survey report was also submitted by the Commissioner. Finally, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, after considering the evidence and other materials on record, rejected the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. (iii) Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent filed an Appeal being Civil Appeal No.63 of 2013, before the Additional District Judge, Mathura. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent/appellant/plaintiff submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC to place certain documents on record as an additional evidence. In the application, it was mentioned that recently it had came into knowledge of the appellant/plaintiff/respondent that one Narain Singh and one Yashvir Singh had already sold the entire area of the plot, therefore, no area was left with those persons to sell it again. It was further mentioned in the application that all the documents were more than 20 years old and it were not earlier in the knowledge of appellant/plaintiff/respondent, and as soon as it came into the knowledge, the said application was filed.
(3.) Petitioners/defendants had filed reply of the said application wherein the grounds mentioned in the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were denied and it was mentioned that the said application was filed with mala fide intention.;