Short Note : 1. Facts in brief leading to the present appeal are that suit house, No 395/5 located in. Benisagar Panna belongs to plaintiffs father Ramdas who. died on 30-1-1953 Some amount of taccavi loan was due against Ramdas and for the realisation of which the suit house was attached and sold in auction on 16-10-1953. The sale was confirmed on 23-7-1953. Plaintiffs challenged the sale on various ground, and for possession by filing the present suit. The suit house was originally purchased in the auction sale by one late Colonel Jang Bahadur Singh who later sold it in favour of Ram Kisan who is respondent No. 3 in the present appeal and also in possession of the same. 2. Held: In the instant case it is clear that none of the grounds mentioned in the application by the plaintiffs justify the exercise of power under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure This Dower cannot be exercised for the reasons that the defendants did not enter into witness-box or the defendants being in possession of the documents did Dot produce the same. The burden to prove that the sale suffered with certain illegalities was on the plaintiffs to prove. The documents which are sought to be now produced as a, piece of additional evidence, there was no difficulty for obtaining the certified copies of the same on the part of the plaintiffs when the matter was before the trial Court and they were to lead evidence in support of their case. Even these are not the documents which were required by the appellate Court for pronouncement of the judgment. The lower appellate Court having considered this aspect as well rejected the application and I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by that Court. 3. I may further point out here to show the conduct of the plaintiffs that the appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court on 3-9-1965 while the application under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was submitted on 2-2-1971, i.e., after more than 5 years, AIR 1931 P. C. 143 relied on. Appeal dismissed.