ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. CERTAIN PROPERTIES WERE OWNED BY ONE BHANUDAS. BHANUDAS HAD TWO SONS - PANDITRAO AND GAJANAN. PANDITRAO WAS MARRIED TO ONE SHEVANTABAI. THE APPELLANTS ARE THE CHILDREN OF PANDITRAO AND SHEVANTABAI. RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 WERE THE HEIRS OF GAJANAN AND HENCE REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF GAJANAN. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE PURCHASERS OF THE INTEREST OF RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN A THE SUIT PROPERTY. 3. IN 1985 TWO SUITS WERE FILED. THE FIRST WAS THE SUIT BY THE APPELLANTS AGAINST RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN WHICH THEY PRAYED FOR A DECLARATION THAT THEY WERE THE SOLE HEIRS OF PANDITRAO AND WERE ENTITLED TO THE SUIT PROPERTY AND TO REMAIN IN POSSESSION THEREOF. THEY ALSO PRAYED FOR AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 FROM INTERFERING WITH THEIR RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT PROPERTY. THE CASE IN THE PLAINT WAS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS OWNED BY PANDITRAO AND IN WHICH THE APPELLANTS HAD ALL ALONG CONTINUED TO BE IN POSSESSION. 4. THE SECOND SUIT WAS FILED BY RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ALSO PRAYING FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROPERTY. THE SUITS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING BY THE TRIAL COURT. THE APPELLANTS SUIT WAS DECREED ON 30-4-1988. THE TRIAL COURT NEGATIVED THE SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 THAT SHEVANTABAI WAS NOT THE WIFE OF PANDITRAO. THE TRIAL COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE THE SONS OF SHEVANTABAI AND PANDITRAO AND WERE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE PROPERTY WHICH CAME TO PANDITRAO ON PARTITION BETWEEN PANDITRAO AND GAJANAN. THE TRIAL COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE DISPUTED PROPERTY WAS THE SEPARATE PROPERTY OF PANDITRAO AND THE APPELLANTS BEING THE ONLY HEIRS OF PANDITRAO WERE EXCLUSIVELY ENTITLED TO THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT APPELLANT I WAS RESIDING IN THE SUIT LAND BY "ERECTING VASTI". IT WAS ALSO RECORDED: "IT IS ADMITTED THAT AFTER DEATH OF PANDITRAO PLAINTIFFS (SIC) IS IN CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE SUIT LAND." 5. ON THE SAME DATE I.E. ON 30-4-1988 THE SUIT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 WAS DISMISSED. RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 PREFERRED TWO SEPARATE APPEALS FROM THE DECREES OF THE TRIAL COURT. IT WAS ALSO RECORDED: "IT IS ADMITTED THAT AFTER DEATH OF PANDITRAO PLAINTIFFS (SIC) IS IN CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE SUIT LAND." 5. ON THE SAME DATE I.E. ON 30-4-1988 THE SUIT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 WAS DISMISSED. RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 PREFERRED TWO SEPARATE APPEALS FROM THE DECREES OF THE TRIAL COURT. BY ITS DECISION DATED 21-7-1994 THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT REVERSED THE DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT AS GRANTED IN THE APPELLANTS SUIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANTS MOTHER SHEVANTABAI WAS NOT THE LEGALLY WEDDED WIFE OF PANDITRAO. IT WAS AFTER THE FIRST APPEAL WAS ALLOWED THAT ON 12-9-1994, RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 SOLD THEIR INTEREST IN THE SUIT PROPERTY TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. 6. THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS, WHICH HAD BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT. AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, THE APPELLANTS BROUGHT THE MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT BY WAY OF SEPARATE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS. THIS COURT ALLOWED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND HELD THAT SHEVANTABAI WAS THE WIFE OF PANDITRAO AND THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVING BEEN BEGOTTEN BY SHEVANTABAI AND PANDITRAO AND BEING THEIR LEGAL HEIRS THEY WOULD SUCCEED TO THE SAID PROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT ON THIS ISSUE WERE RESTORED AND THE FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT WERE SET ASIDE. 7. ON THE FURTHER QUESTION WHETHER THE APPELLANTS WERE ENTITLED TO THE PRAYER FOR INJUNCTION AS HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT, THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT AND THE HIGH COURT INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDING OF POSSESSION IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFFS BY THE TRIAL COURT, HAD MERELY REVERSED THE JUDGMENT COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT THE LEGAL HEIRS OF PANDITRAO WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS COURT FELT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO FINALLY CONCLUDE THE QUESTION AND THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT. ACCORDINGLY THE COURT SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF THE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS COURT FELT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO FINALLY CONCLUDE THE QUESTION AND THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT. ACCORDINGLY THE COURT SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF THE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT. IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE QUESTION OF SHEVANTABAI BEING THE WIFE OF PANDITRAO AND THE APPELLANTS BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF PANDITRAO WAS CONCLUDED BY THIS COURT AND WOULD NOT BE REOPENED. HOWEVER, THE COURT DIRECTED: "BUT THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT WOULD RECONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDINGS ON THE QUESTION OF POSSESSION TO DECIDE THE RELIEF OF INJUNCTION." 8. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BACK TO THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT, PURSUANT TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, THE APPELLANTS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDING THE PLAINT AND TO ADD RESPONDENTS 1-4 AS PARTIES. THE AMENDMENT WAS ALLOWED. AN APPLICATION WAS ALSO MADE FOR ADDING RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AS PARTIES TO THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT. THIS WAS ALSO ALLOWED. AFTER THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED OUT, THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT DIRECTED SUMMONS TO BE ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS 1-4 FOR SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 APPEARED (REFERRED TO AS THE ADDED RESPONDENTS HEREAFTER) AND WERE GRANTED TIME TO FILE A WRITTEN STATEMENT. THEY FILED THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENT. THE ADDED RESPONDENTS THEN MADE TWO APPLICATIONS. THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE ON THE QUESTION OF POSSESSION. THE SECOND APPLICATION WAS FOR DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD SOLD THEIR INTEREST IN THE SUIT PROPERTY TO THIRD PARTIES, THE BELEKARS, ON 4-4- 1997. THE BELEKARS ALSO MADE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT FOR BEING ADDED AS PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS. 9. BY AN ORDER DATED 10-9-2001, THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT, AFTER RECORDING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ADDED RESPONDENTS TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE. IT HELD THAT THE COURT HAD TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF POSSESSION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN RECORDED BY THE TRIAL COURT AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. 10. THE ADDED RESPONDENTS IMPUGNED THIS DECISION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1296 OF 2001. 10. THE ADDED RESPONDENTS IMPUGNED THIS DECISION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1296 OF 2001. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THIS COURT HAD NOT PRECLUDED THE ADDUCING OF FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT BY RESPONDENTS 1-4. IT ALSO SAID THAT WHEN THE COURT HAD TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDED RESPONDENTS HAD PURCHASED RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6S INTERESTS IN SUIT PROPERTY, "IT WOULD BE A SITUATION AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT PARTIES IMPLEADED AS DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND BY PRODUCING EVIDENCE IN THEIR FAVOUR AND THAT SUCH A SITUATION WOULD ATTRACT THE PHRASE ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCORPORATED IN ORDER 41 RULE 27(1)(B) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE." 11. BY THIS DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, THE HIGH COURT ALSO CONSIDERED A SECOND CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION WHICH PERTAINED TO THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 PRAYING FOR DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT. THIS APPLICATION WAS NUMBERED AS CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1295 OF 2001. THE ORDER ON THIS APPLICATION IS ALSO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF A SEPARATE APPEAL BEFORE US. THE HIGH COURT DIRECTED THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE ADDED RESPONDENTS FOR DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT "EITHER ALONG WITH OR AFTER DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION BY THE BELEKARS FOR BEING IMPLEADED AS A PARTY". 12. AS FAR AS THE FIRST APPEAL IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE ADDED RESPONDENTS TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF POSSESSION HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. THE TRIAL COURT HAD FOUND ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE AND CONTINUED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY. IT IS FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT TO CONSIDER ON APPEAL WHETHER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE IT, THE TRIAL COURT HAD COME TO THE CORRECT CONCLUSION. THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ADDED RESPONDENTS CAME INTO THE PICTURE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 1994. BESIDES THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN DECIDING THE EARLIER APPEALS BY THE APPELLANTS QUITE CLEARLY DIRECTED THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT TO RECONSIDER THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ADDED RESPONDENTS CAME INTO THE PICTURE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 1994. BESIDES THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN DECIDING THE EARLIER APPEALS BY THE APPELLANTS QUITE CLEARLY DIRECTED THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT TO RECONSIDER THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THIS COURT AFTER THE ADDED RESPONDENTS WERE ADDED AS PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT AND UPON HEARING THEIR SUBMISSIONS. THEREFORE THE ADDED RESPONDENTS WERE DE FACTO PARTIES IN THE PROCEEDINGS. ALL THAT THE APPELLANTS DID IN MAKING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 WAS TO FORMALISE THIS BY BRINGING THE ADDED RESPONDENTS ON RECORD. FURTHERMORE, THE ADDED RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN RESPONDENTS 5-6. MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD NOT GIVE THEM GREATER RIGHTS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS THAN THOSE TO WHICH RESPONDENTS 5-6 WERE ENTITLED IN RESPECT OF THAT PROPERTY. THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THEIR ALLEGED POSSESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDUCED BY RESPONDENTS 5-6 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DONE, THE MERE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OF RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 SELLING THEIR INTEREST TO THE ADDED RESPONDENTS WOULD NOT CREATE ANY FRESH RIGHT IN THE PURCHASERS TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE AND TO REOPEN THE MATTER WHICH WAS OTHERWISE CONCLUDED. FOR THE REASONS AFORESAID, THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN CRA NO. 1296 OF 2001 IS SET ASIDE AND THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT IS RESTORED. 13. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN CRA NO. 1295 OF 2001 IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SEQUENCE OF DECIDING THE APPLICATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY THE HIGH COURT. IN REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT THE HIGH COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE BELEKARS FOR IMPLEADMENT FIRST BEFORE DECIDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ADDED RESPONDENTS FOR DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT. WE, THEREFORE, DO SO AND MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IN CRA NO. 1295 OF 2001 TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT. NO ORDERS AS TO COSTS.