Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Rishi Pallava, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "For quashing the order dated 12.07.2016 passed in Review Petition No. 16/2016 (Mentioned as Revocation Case No. 16/2016 in the order sheet) whereby and whereunder the Review Petition filed for reviewing the order dated 22.07.2014 passed in Title Appeal No. 20/2012 on Petition dated 29.11.2013 filed under order LXI Rule 27 CPC r/w Sec. 151 CPC has been dismissed on the ground that the petition is not maintainable rather devoid of any merit. The petitioners further prays for quashing the order dated 27.06.2014 passed in Title Appeal No. 20/2012 on petition dated 29.11.2013 filed on behalf of the Petitioners under order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC whereby and whereunder the Learned Court below has dismissed the petition dated 29.11.2013 for adducing additional evidence on the ground that the same is devoid of any merit."
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits as under:- a) Title Appeal No. 20 of 2012 was filed against the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 34 of 2005 dated 31.08.2012 in favour of the plaintiffs. b) An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for filing additional evidence at the appellate stage to bring on record three documents, namely, certified copy of register II in the name of Subedar Mian ( new), certified copy of register II (old) and certified copy of Khatian of latest survey which were not in possession of the petitioners during the pendency of title suit. c) Said petition was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2014 which referred only to two documents out of three which the petitioner wanted to bring on record by way of producing additional evidence and the impugned order has been passed by indicating that no substantial cause has been mentioned in the petition as to why such document was not produced before the learned trial court. d) He submits that the petitioners had also filed review petition before the learned appellate court, which was numbered as Revocation Case No. 16 of 2016, and was also dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2016 by indicating that the original petition was dismissed by citing reasons and the review was not maintainable. e) Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in, Eastern Equipment & Sales Limited Versus Ing. Yash Kumar Khanna, 2008 12 SCC 739 and submits that an application for additional evidence should always be taken at the time of final hearing of the appeal and accordingly the application should have been considered by the learned court below at the time of final hearing and the same has been wrongly rejected prior to the final hearing of the appeal and at the stage when the case was pending for hearing. Counsel also referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Jaipur Development Authority vs. Kailashwati Devi, 1997 7 SCC 297 (SMT)) which has been referred to at paragraph no. 7 of the aforesaid judgement reported in, Eastern Equipment & Sales Limited Versus Ing. Yash Kumar Khanna, 2008 12 SCC 739 ;