Order The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by learned District Judge, Sahibganj dated 4th May, 2009 in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008, whereby, the application, preferred by the present petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 for adducing additional evidences under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed and, therefore, the present petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 1 is the original plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 2005 for specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sale dated 11th November. 2003. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is the owner of the property, in question, by registered sale deed dated 6th June, 2005, the petitioner was never joined as a party defendant. Ultimately, the suit was decreed vide order dated 30th July, 2008 and, therefore, the present petitioner alongwith other persons, who are also the owners of the property, in question, by registered sale deed, as well as original defendant have preferred Title Appeal No.18 of 2008. Thus, it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never joined as a party defendant, though he was an owner by registered Sale deed dated 6th June, 2005. Likewise respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 are also owners by registered sale deed dated 3rd July, 1995, they were also not joined as party defendants and, therefore, the present petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 as well as original defendant have preferred Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008 before learned District Judge, Sahibganj and the application was preferred under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that they want to adduce their additional evidences because they were never joined as parties before the trial court and the registered sale deeds, by virtue of which, the petitioner as well as respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 have become owners of the property, in question, ought to be allowed to present documents before the appellate court so that these documents will facilitate the appellate court in arriving out at a correct decision of the dispute between the parties. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that original defendant has clearly mentioned in paragraph 5 of his written statement that he is now no more the owner of the property, in question, and he has sold away the property. Despite this fact, original plaintiff has not taken any care to join the purchasers of the property, in question, as defendants. These persons ought to have joined as defendants after proper reading of the written statement, filed by the original defendant and, therefore, leave to prefer an appeal was sought for by the present petitioner and respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, which was granted by learned District Judge, Sahibganj vide order dated 12th November, 2008, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition. The original plaintiff had never opposed this leave to prefer application by third party to suit. Though, the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were necessary parties, deliberately, they were not joined as party defendants. Thereafter, they are getting first time opportunity to present those documents before the lower appellate court and, therefore, an application, preferred under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ought to have been allowed by the trial court. The trial court has not properly appreciated the fact that the petitioner and respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were never parties before the trial court and, therefore, these registered sale deeds dated 6th June, 2005 as well as 3rd July, 1995 could not be presented. There was no opportunity, at all, with the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight by the lower appellate court and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 has adopted the arguments, canvassed by learned counsel for .the petitioner, and submitted that respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 are also necessary parties in the Title Suit No. 3 of 2005. Despite the fact stated in paragraph 5 of the written statement, filed by original defendant, there is clear mentioning of the sale deed, had a care been taken by the original plaintiff that respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 would have been joined as party defendants. Despite the fact stated in paragraph 5 of the written statement, filed by original defendant, there is clear mentioning of the sale deed, had a care been taken by the original plaintiff that respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 would have been joined as party defendants. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the lower appellate court and, therefore also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, who has also adopted the arguments, canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as by learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, and submitted that the original defendant has no axe to grind in the suit property. He has sold away part of the suit property on 3rd July, 1995 onwards to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, likewise his brother- has also sold away part of the suit property by registered sale deed dated 6th June, 2005 to the present petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the application preferred, under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the present petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 ought to have been allowed by the lower appellate court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for respondent no. 1 (original plaintiff), who has vehemently submitted that looking to the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the facts presented by the present petitioner is not falling in any of the clause referred to in Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, rightly the lower appellate court has dismissed the application, preferred by the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 (original plaintiff) has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2008 SC 579 . 6. 3, 4 and 5 and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 (original plaintiff) has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2008 SC 579 . 6. Having heard 'learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by learned District Judge, Sahibganj dated 4th May, 2009 in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008 especially below an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, preferred by the present petitioner, who is also an appellant, mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The present respondent no. 1 is the original plaintiff who instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 2005 The suit is filed for specific performance on the basis of some unregistered agreement to sale. This unregistered agreement to sale is dated 11th November, 2003. (ii) It appears that respondent no. 2, who is the sole defendant in Title Suit No. 3 of 2005, has already filed his written statement before the trial court and in paragraph 5 of the written statement, it has been categorically mentioned that the original defendant ceases to be the owner of the suit property. He has already sold away the property much earlier in the year 1995. Had a care been taken by original plaintiff, he would have been joined respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 as party defendants because the suit property was sold away by the original defendant on 3rd July, 1995 by registered sale deeds to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, but, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were never joined as party defendants in Title Suit No. 3 of 2005, even after reading the written statement. (iii) It further appears that likewise remaining part of the suit property was sold away by brother of the original defendant to the present petitioner by registered sale deed dated 6th June, 2005. Thus, the whole suit property was originally owned by two brothers, one of them was original defendant. Both brothers have sold away the property by four different registered sale deeds. The original defendant has sold away the property to respondent nos. Thus, the whole suit property was originally owned by two brothers, one of them was original defendant. Both brothers have sold away the property by four different registered sale deeds. The original defendant has sold away the property to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and brother of the original detendant has sold away the property by registered sale deed to the present petitioner. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the lower appellate court. Despite these facts, neither the petitioner nor respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were joined as party defendants and, therefore, they had no opportunity to present the registered sale deeds, which are in their favour before the lower court. (iv) Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 30th July, 2008 without joining of the purchasers of the suit property as defendants. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the lower appellate court. The petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were in fact are the necessary parties. (v) It appears that being aggrieved and filling (sic-feeling ?) dissatisfied by judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2008 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Sahibganj, Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008 was preferred by the purchasers of the property i.e. the present petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and the original defendant. (vi) As the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were •never joined as parties to the suit, they have preferred an application, seeking leave to prefer an appeal. This application was never opposed by the original plaintiff. Leave to prefer appeal was granted by the District Judge, Sahibganj vide order dated 12th November, 2008. Thus, leave to prefer an appeal was given to the third party to the suit. (vii) Now, obviously the question will be that those, who have obtained leave to prefer an appeal and those, who were never joined as parties in the suit, though they were necessary parties and though they have purchased the suit property on 3rd July, 1995 and on 6th June, 2005 by registered sale deeds, will have to be adduced their evidences as first opportunity before lower appellate court in the facts of the present case. (viii) It therefore, appears that after getting leave to prefer an appeal, the present petitioner and respondent nos. (viii) It therefore, appears that after getting leave to prefer an appeal, the present petitioner and respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have preferred Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008. The Appeal was admitted by the lower appellate court. They have also preferred an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for adducing evidence. The lower appellant court has lost sight of the facts that these parties were never joined as party defendants though they are directly interested in the outcome of the suit. The lower court has also lost sight of the fact that though paragraph 5 of the written statement, filed by the original defendant, referred sale of the property in the year 1995, purchasers should be joined as defendants. These persons were never joined as party defendants. Therefore, they had no opportunity to present their registered sale deeds before the trial court. The court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are appearing before the court for the first time, ought to be allowed to present their documents, which are in the form of registered sale deeds. The lower appellate court has also lost sight that no prejudice is going to cause to the original plaintiff by allowing the presentation of these documents by the third parties to whom the District Court. Sahibgani has already given leave to prefer an appeal. The case of the present petitioner is falling within Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The registered sale deeds by which the suit property has already sold away in the year 1995 and in the year 2005 ought to be allowed to be brought on record in the interest of justice. No matter should have been decided mechanically. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the lower appellate court. When some person is not joined as party defendant and though he is an owner of the suit property, in question, much earlier than filing of the suit, is allowed to prefer an appeal by granting leave to prefer an appeal. The parties should have been allowed to present their documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ix) The present petitioner as well as respondent nos. The parties should have been allowed to present their documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ix) The present petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were not joined as party defendants in Title Suit No. 3 of 2005 though paragraph 5 of the written statement of the original defendant makes" it clear that the suit property was already sold away in the year 1995 and, therefore, leave to prefer an appeal was given to the third party to the suit by the District Court, Sahibganj. These facts make the present case different from the facts of a case as reported in AIR 2008 SC 579 and, therefore, ratio decidendi of said decision is not applicable to the facts of the presont case. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by learned District Judge, Sahibganj dated 4th May, 2009 in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008 below an application preferred by the present petitioner and respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 as well as by original defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. I hereby allow the application preferred under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of petition. The documents, in question, will be taken on record by the lower appellate court and I also hereby direct the lower appellate court to hear and dispose of the Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably on or before 30th April, 2011. 8. The writ petition is, hereby, allowed and disposed of.