IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.170/2009 Date of Decision:14.1.2009. Smt.Murti Devi and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Dhanpat and others ..........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Arun Yadav,Advocate for the petitioners-defendants. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioners-defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P/5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, whereby the application of the petitioners-defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal was dismissed. Facts in brief are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioners-defendants regarding the suit property, which was decreed by the learned trial Court on 15.3.2005 and against which an appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Rewari. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for producing 17 documents detailed in the application, by way of additional evidence. It was stated that those documents had come to their knowledge while contesting another suit between the same parties relating to another property adjoining the suit property and it was necessary for the proper adjudication of the present suit. Respondents-plaintiffs filed reply stating therein that the 17 CR NO.170/2009 2 documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence were throughout within the knowledge of the petitioners-defendants and further these were not related to the disputed property and also beyond pleadings and thus, the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC were not satisfied. The learned appellate Court after perusing the documents attached with the application and considering the arguments of both sides and by relying upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.R.Mohan Reddy v. M/s Net Work Inc.Rep.Tr.M.D. 2007(1) RCR 770, held that the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC were not satisfied. It was found that the petitioner-defendant herself had pleaded that the said 17 documents referred in the application for additional evidence are relating to property adjoining the suit land and there was no mention regarding the said documents in the pleadings of the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It was also found that it could not be said that 17 documents sought to be placed on record at such a belated stage were not in their knowledge at the stage before the trial Court since they formed part of the other suit between the same parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P/5) which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Resultantly, being devoid of any merit this revision petition is dismissed in limine. 14.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge