JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.4.96 passed by 5th Addl. District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 6/92, whereby judgment and decree dated 25.2.92 passed by 12th Civil Judge Class I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 277-A/91, whereby suit filed by the respondent No. 1 for declaration, permanent injunction and possession was decreed, was maintained, present appeal has been filed. 2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2003 on the following substantial questions of law.: (1) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in confirming the decree passed by the lower Court which had decreed the suit? (2) Whether action on the part of the defendant by issuing notice Ex.P/9-C dated 23.2.84 to the plaintiff is legal and justified? (3) What are the true rights conferred upon the plaintiff by virtue of Patta, Ex.P/2-C, dated 24.4.1949 in respect of the land in question? 3. Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit on 26.9.86 alleging that respondent No. 1 is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions of M.P. Societies Act,1960. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 society was established in the year 1948 and was registered vide order dated 8.5.72 by sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore. It was alleged that since then respondent No. 1 society is carrying on its activities in the name of Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society. It was alleged that object of respondent No. 1 society is to provide the accommodation to the persons of the category of Below Poverty Line. It was alleged that upon the request of respondent No. 1 society land bearing 16 survey numbers measuring 441.61 acres was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society vide lease deed dated 25.4.49. It was alleged that the suit land was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society by Madhya Bharat State vide registered lease dated 25.4.49. It was alleged that possession of land was given by the revenue authorities to the respondent No. 1 society on spot on 1.5.49, in regard of which receipt was issued in favour of respondent No. 1 society. It was alleged that after allotment respondent No. 1 society started the development work on the site. It was alleged that the development work was completed by the respondent No. 1 society on a major part of the land. It was alleged that after allotment respondent No. 1 society started the development work on the site. It was alleged that the development work was completed by the respondent No. 1 society on a major part of the land. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 society has developed the land in shape of plots for the persons of lower income group (LIG) and middle income group (MIG). It was alleged that more than 5000 applications are pending for consideration with the respondent No. 1 society, wherein the prayer is for allotment of plots. 4. Further case of the respondent No. 1 society was that appellant No. 3 registered the cases against respondent No. 1 society for encroachment, which has been quashed by Collector and S.D.M., Indore on the ground that the respondent No. 1 society is in occupation under the valid lease deed granted by the then State Government and the State has not taken back the land from the respondent No. 1 society. Further case of the respondent No. 1 society was that the land which was given to the respondent No. 1 society was for housing purpose, which is non-agricultural purpose, therefore, the suit land was diverted and the diversion fee was also assessed. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 society has never violated any of the terms of the lease. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 society is entitled to maintain its possession over the suit land and is also entitled to allot the suit land after development to its members in shape of plots. 5. It was further alleged that the notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 society under the provisions of M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Adhiniyam, 1982, wherein respondent No. 1 society was informed that no permanent lease has been executed by the appellant State in favour of the respondent No. 1 society, therefore, respondent No. 1 society was directed not to raise any construction over the suit property. It was alleged that in the said notice it was further stated that if it is found that the construction is raised, then the respondent No. 1 society shall be prosecuted under the provisions of the said Act. It was alleged that in the said notice it was further stated that if it is found that the construction is raised, then the respondent No. 1 society shall be prosecuted under the provisions of the said Act. It was alleged that because of notice dated 23.2.84 the construction activities of the house on the plots alloted to the members of the society has stopped and the work of allotment to the members has also stopped. It was alleged that the provisions of the said Act is not applicable to the respondent No. 1 society. It was denied that permanent lease has been executed in favour of respondent No. 1 society. It was alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the case the notice dated 23.2.84 issued by the appellant is illegal. 6. In the suit it was alleged that land bearing survey No. 277/1/1, 279/1/1, 779/1/3, 279/1/4, 279/1/4 and 285 situated at village Bangarda land bearing survey No. 143, 144/611/1, 144/611/3, 145 and 610 situated at village Jamburdi and land bearing survey No. 31, 34 and 307/5 situated at village Nainod is the land, which belongs to the respondent No. 1 society but appellants are in occupation of the said land since last 2-3 years and appellant State is allotting the said land. It was alleged that appellants have also alloted land bearing survey No. 171/1 measuring nine acres before one month for mining purposes. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 society is entitled to take possession of the suit land from the appellants. In the suit it was prayed that it be declared that the suit land was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society for housing purpose vide lease deed dated 25.4.49 and it be declared that the notice issued by the appellants dated 23.2.84 is illegal and is having no binding effect on the respondent No. 1 society. It was prayed that decree of possession be passed against the appellants for the land bearing survey numbers mentioned in para 6 of the plaint. It was also prayed that mesne profits be awarded @ Rs. 10/- per acre per year. 7. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement, wherein it was not disputed that the suit land was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society vide lease deed dated 25.4.49. It was also prayed that mesne profits be awarded @ Rs. 10/- per acre per year. 7. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement, wherein it was not disputed that the suit land was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society vide lease deed dated 25.4.49. However, it was alleged that respondent No. 1 society failed to comply with the terms of the lease, therefore, erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat and thereafter State of Madhya Pradesh allowed to continue the lease for the land measuring 25 acres over which the construction was raised, which bears survey No. 717/3/2 situated at Bangarda measuring 18 acres and survey Nos. 307/2 and 307/4 measuring 7 acres situated at village Nainod. It was alleged that rest of the land was taken by appellant State by various orders. It was alleged that the land measuring 441.61 acres was allotted to the respondent No. 1 society on 29.9.49 but since the respondent No. 1 society failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the special lease, therefore, the land was taken back by the appellant State except leaving 25 acres of land to the respondent No. 1 society. Further case of the appellant State was that since the respondent No. 1 society tried to encroach over the land, therefore, the action was taken by the appellant State. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 society is not entitled for any relief. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 society against which appeal was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this appeal. 8. I.A. No. 3994/2001 is filed by the intervenor under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC, wherein it was alleged that part of the suit land has been allotted to the intervenor vide lease deed dated 3.4.93. It was alleged that the land, which has been allotted to intervenor is measuring 25.20 acres bearing survey Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34/1 situated at village Nainod and survey Nos. 279/1/5, 282 and 283 total 2.80 acres of land at village Bangarda. It was alleged that land bearing survey Nos. 279/1/1 and 279/1/3 total 25.11 acres of village Bangarda was also given in physical possession of the intervenor trust, but registered deed could not be executed. 31, 32, 33 and 34/1 situated at village Nainod and survey Nos. 279/1/5, 282 and 283 total 2.80 acres of land at village Bangarda. It was alleged that land bearing survey Nos. 279/1/1 and 279/1/3 total 25.11 acres of village Bangarda was also given in physical possession of the intervenor trust, but registered deed could not be executed. It was submitted that in the circumstances intervenor be permitted to take part in the appeal. Vide order dated 10.2.2003 this Court directed that the application shall be taken into consideration at the time of final hearing. Vide order dated 6.11.98, while issuing notice execution of the impugned decree so far as it relates to delivery of possession is concerned, was stayed. The interim order was further modified by this Court vide order dated 12.3.2003, whereby it was directed that appellants shall not create any third party rights in the suit land pending appeal and appellants shall not change the condition and topography of the suit land. It was further directed that in the event of the appeal being dismissed and impugned decree upheld, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 will have no difficulty in obtaining possession of the suit land. Vide order dated 30.1.2009 appellant State was directed not to make or permit construction over the disputed land and status quo as on that day shall be maintained till 9.2.2009. This order was further confirmed vide order dated 9.2.2009. 9. On 13.1.2010 an application I.A. No. 315/2010 has been filed by the Indore Development Authority, wherein it was alleged that the order passed by this Court on 12.3.2003 may be modified and condition be imposed against respondent No. 1 society as the respondent No. 1 society is allotting the plots. It was also alleged that IDA has proposed to construct the super corridor (road), which is approximately 400 mtrs. X 75 mtrs., which is necessary for public convenience, hence it was prayed that IDA be permitted to allow to construct super corridor, which is proposed in the Master Plan of 1975. This application was dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2009 on the ground that IDA has no right to intervene in the matter. 10. X 75 mtrs., which is necessary for public convenience, hence it was prayed that IDA be permitted to allow to construct super corridor, which is proposed in the Master Plan of 1975. This application was dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2009 on the ground that IDA has no right to intervene in the matter. 10. Before proceeding further it is necessary to take stock of the applications, which are pending for disposal, which are as under: (i) I.A. No. 3994/01, which is an application filed by the intervenor under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC on 7.11.2001. (ii) I.A. No. 8361/08, which is an application filed by the respondent No. 1 society for vacating the stay order dated 6.11.98. (iii) I.A. No. 5602/2010, which is an application filed by the respondent No. 1 society for taking appropriate steps against the appellant for contempt. (iv) I.A. No. 5603/2010, which is an application filed by respondent No. 1 society for consideration of the applications i.e.I.A. Nos. 8361/08 and 304/09. (v) I.A. No. 316/10 is the application filed by the appellant for modification of the order dated 12.3.2010. (vi) I.A. No. 5630/10, which is filed by appellant State under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking certain documents on record. 11. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Counsel for the intervenor Bhagwan Bahubali Digambar Trust, Gommatgiri, submits that part of land in dispute, of which details are mentioned hereinabove, was alloted to the intervenor vide registered lease deed and registered lease deed could not be executed for rest of the land, which was alloted to the intervenor. It is submitted that application filed before the learned appellate Court to implead the intervenor as party was dismissed by the learned appellate Court only on the ground that section 52 of Transfer of Property Act protects the interest of the intervenor. It is submitted that it was requested that since the matter relates to public interest, therefore, intervenor be permitted to address the Court under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC but that prayer was also turned down. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances application is filed before this Court under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC. It is submitted that the land, which has been alloted to the respondent No. 1 is 441.61 acres in the city of Indore, therefore, public interest is involved, hence the intervenor should be heard. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances application is filed before this Court under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC. It is submitted that the land, which has been alloted to the respondent No. 1 is 441.61 acres in the city of Indore, therefore, public interest is involved, hence the intervenor should be heard. It is submitted that so far as substantial question of law No. 1 is concerned, if is decided in favour of respondent No. 1 society then it is going to affect the interest of public at large and also interest of intervenor. It is submitted that, therefore, intervenor should be heard on merits. This application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for respondent No. 1 society alleging that intervenor cannot be allowed to intervene in the matter and no audience can be given to the intervenor. It is submitted that application be dismissed. Order 1 Rule 8A CPC reads as under: Rule 8A. Power of Court to permit a person or body of persons to present opinion or to take part in proceedings.- While trying a suit, the Court may, if satisfied that a person or body of persons is interested in any question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow that person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law, permit that person or body of persons to present such opinion and to take such part in the proceedings of the suit as the Court may specify. 12. Rule 8A has been inserted in CPC vide amendment Act 104 of 1976. The object of the aforesaid provision is to permit the joinder of a person or body of persons, egan organisation, interested in the legal issues in a suit to present his or its opinion before the Court and take part in the proceedings in the suit. This will enable organisations and citizens take action in defence of the rights and lawful interest of others. This will enable organisations and citizens take action in defence of the rights and lawful interest of others. Discretion which vested with the Court is required to be examined with utmost care and only in suitable cases when the Court is satisfied that a third person or an organisation is really interested in any legal issue in the private dispute between two parties before it and that in the public interest permission should be given to the said person or organisation concerned to take such specified part in the proceedings as it thinks fit. Unless this utmost caution is taken busy bodies may interfere with private disputes, which is not at all the intention of the Legislature in enacting this provision. In the matter of Municipal Council, Hansi v. Mani Raj (2001) 4 SCC 173 , where municipal council, Hansi, District Hissar in Haryana State was in possession of the property and was not party to award and on the basis of Court's order the council was directed to give possession of the property to the third party and on the basis of Court's order direction was given to give possession of the property to third party, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that application of the municipal council seeking intervention should not be rejected merely on the ground of latches and delay where the order affects the valuable right of the applicant over the Immovable property. Thus Order 1 Rule 8A CPC empowers the Court to give audience if it is satisfied that question of law of public interest is involved. Since the status of appellant State is not in dispute and respondent No. 1 society is claiming lease hold rights and also intervener, who is religious institution is also claiming right and the land is 441.61 acres in the city of Indore, this Court is of the view that it is the fit case, where right of audience should be given. In view of this application is allowed. Learned Counsel for the intervener is permitted to address the Court. 13. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Counsel for the intervener, who is given right of hearing, submits that from the various documents, which has been filed by the appellant State before the learned appellate Court, it is evident that it was only 25 acres of land, which was retained by respondent No. 1 society and rest of the land was surrendered. 13. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Counsel for the intervener, who is given right of hearing, submits that from the various documents, which has been filed by the appellant State before the learned appellate Court, it is evident that it was only 25 acres of land, which was retained by respondent No. 1 society and rest of the land was surrendered. It is submitted that thereafter a part of the land has been leased out to the intervener Trust. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of learned appellate Court in rejecting the application filed by intervener and also in rejecting the application filed by appellant State under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the documents on record, it is a case of remand. 14. On the application I.A. No. 315/2010, which is filed by appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC notices were issued to the alleged encroachers but they have not responded. Since the appeal is being heard finally, therefore, no separate order is necessary on various applications filed by respondent No. 1 hence the same (except I.A. No. 5630/2010) stands dismissed. So far as I.A. No. 5630/2010 filed by the appellant State under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is concerned, the same is being taken into consideration. 15. Shri L.N. Soni, learned Addl. Advocate General, submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that alongwith the plaint no full particulars of the suit land were given. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 society itself surrendered the land by various letters except keeping 25 acres of land. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 society showed its inability to deposit the lease rent, which was condition precedent for continuation of the lease. It is submitted that since the lease rent was not deposited by the respondent No. 1 society timely and the respondent No. 1 itself did not utilize the land for the purpose for which it was alloted, therefore, life of the lease automatically came to an end. Learned Counsel submits that part of the land was alloted to the intervener. It is submitted that since the lease rent was not deposited by the respondent No. 1 society timely and the respondent No. 1 itself did not utilize the land for the purpose for which it was alloted, therefore, life of the lease automatically came to an end. Learned Counsel submits that part of the land was alloted to the intervener. It is submitted that it is true that the appellant State could not adduce evidence before the learned trial Court but before the appellate Court an application was filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC alongwith various documents, which goes to show that the land, which was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society was surrendered. It is submitted that another application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC, which ought to have been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was also filed before the learned appellate Court but both the applications were dismissed and the appellants were not given opportunity to adduce additional evidence. It is submitted that again effort is made by the appellant State before this Court by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It is submitted that the documents, which have been filed by the appellants before this Court goes to show that the land was surrendered by the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 society also failed to deposit the lease rent timely, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. Apart from this learned Counsel submits that appellants have filed copies of various registered sale deeds, which has been executed by the respondent No. 1 society during pendency of appeal while interim order dated 12.3.2003 was in existence. It is submitted that no map has been submitted by respondent No. 1 society to demonstrate, which part of the property has been sub leased by the respondent No. 1 society to its members. Some of the survey numbers, which has been mentioned in the various sub lease deeds executed by respondent No. 1 society, were never leased out to respondent No. 1 society. It is submitted that sub lease has been executed by respondent No. 1 society of the land which is not in occupation of respondent No. 1 society. Some of the survey numbers, which has been mentioned in the various sub lease deeds executed by respondent No. 1 society, were never leased out to respondent No. 1 society. It is submitted that sub lease has been executed by respondent No. 1 society of the land which is not in occupation of respondent No. 1 society. Learned Counsel further submits that part of the land is badly required to appellant State for construction of super corridor and part of construction work could not be undertaken only because of interim order passed by this Court vide order dated 12.3.2003. Learned Counsel submits that because of interim order work of national importance is being hampered. It is submitted that even if entire evidence adduced by the respondent No. 1 society is taken into consideration, then too suit filed by the respondent No. 1 society does not stands proved. It is submitted that findings recorded by the Court below are perverse, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. In alternative learned Counsel submits that keeping in view the fact that application filed by the appellants before the learned Court below was wrongly dismissed, therefore, appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside and the case be remanded. 16. Shri P.V. Bhagwat, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 society, submits that appeal filed by the appellant State is without any substance, which deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that none of the substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, no evidence was led before the trial Court, where the suit remained pending for more than seven years. It is submitted that an attempt was made by the appellants by filing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the learned appellate Court, which was rightly dismissed by the appellate Court and thereafter no grievance was made by the appellants before this Court by challenging the said order. It is submitted that the application, which is filed before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not disclose any of the ingredients mentioned under the provision so as to enable the Court to exercise the powers for accepting additional evidence at such belated stage. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no opportunity to fill up the lacunae can be given to the appellant State. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no opportunity to fill up the lacunae can be given to the appellant State. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Gujrat v. Mahendra Kumar AIR 2006 SC 1864 , wherein the suit was filed by the State for declaration praying that suit land belongs to State and no plea was made by the State that the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts or such evidence was not within its knowledge, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the application was rightly rejected by the High Court filed by the State for adducing evidence, which was intended only to fill up lacunae in its case. Learned Counsel further submits that even if the documents submitted by the appellant State is taken into consideration, then for deciding any of the substantial question of law framed by this Court, it is not necessary to take them on record. It is submitted that application filed by appellants deserves to be dismissed and be dismissed. Learned Counsel submits that suit land was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society by lease deed and the possession was given as is evident from the document Ex.P/3. For the first time before this Court plea has been raised by the appellant State that land was surrendered by the respondent No. 1 society but in fact in para 2 of the written statement filed by the appellant State, it is nowhere stated that respondent No. 1 society has surrendered the land. On the contrary case of the appellants before the trial Court was that since the respondent No. 1 has violated the terms of the lease agreement, therefore, under the various orders passed by the Collector, the land has been taken back by the State. Learned Counsel further submits that even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that some letters were written by the society for surrender of the land, it has no relevance because it is not the case of appellant State that act of respondent No. 1 society for surrendering of land was accepted by the appellant State. Learned Counsel further submits that even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that some letters were written by the society for surrender of the land, it has no relevance because it is not the case of appellant State that act of respondent No. 1 society for surrendering of land was accepted by the appellant State. It is submitted that appellants have not raised any argument relating to substantial questions of law framed by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 17. From perusal of record it appears that to prove the case respondent No. 1 society has submitted the documents Ex.P/1 to P/14. Ex.P/2 is the lease deed dated 25.4.49, whereby the State of Madhya Bharat agreed to lease out 441.61 acres of land to the respondent No. 1 society for Gandhi Nagar Scheme. As per the terms and conditions of the lease agreement respondent No. 1 society was not entitled to change the land use without prior permission of the State Government. At the time of settlement the State Government was at liberty to re-assess the lease rent. Respondent No. 1 society was entitled to use the land only for the purpose for which it was leased out. It was also agreed that in case of default of any of the conditions the lease was to cancel. Vide Ex.P/3 possession of the land measuring 441.61 acres was given to the respondent No. 1 society. Ex.P/4 is the letter issued by Assistant Revenue Secretary, Govt. of Madya Bharat dated 25.4.49, wherein it was mentioned that the suit land measuring 441.61 acres is being given to the respondent No. 1 society on payment of lease rent @ Rs. 10/- per acre and the conditions, which were mentioned in the lease agreement Ex.P/2 were re-produced. Ex.P/5 is the license issued in favour of respondent No. 1 society under the provisions of M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Adhiniyam,1982. Ex.P/6 is the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Indore in revision No. 311/98, whereby the order dated 13.2.80 passed by Tehsildar, Indore, whereby it was held that respondent No. 1 society is in illegal possession of 68.78 acres of land was set aside. Ex.P/6 is the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Indore in revision No. 311/98, whereby the order dated 13.2.80 passed by Tehsildar, Indore, whereby it was held that respondent No. 1 society is in illegal possession of 68.78 acres of land was set aside. In the said order it was further observed that the land was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society vide lease deed 25.4.49 and vide letter dated 4.6.54 the respondent No. 1 society was instructed that the respondent No. 1 society shall complete the construction of house within a period of four years failing which the land will vest in the State Government and the entire arrears of lease rent shall be recovered from respondent No. 1 society. Ex.P/7 is the order passed by S.D.M., Indore dated 29.1.81, whereby the order passed by the Revenue Authorities, whereby respondent No. 1 society was declared as encroacher was set aside. Ex.P/8 is the revenue record for the year 1985-86, which goes to show that the land bearing survey No. 717/1 was alloted for mining purposes. Total are of survey No. 717/1 is 90.33 acres of land in column No. 10 it is also stated that respondent No. 1 society has constructed house on 4.26 acres of land. It is also stated that the land is being used for cremation purposes. Ex.P/9 is the letter issued by Collector, Indore dated 24.2.84, whereby the respondent No. 1 society was informed that the land has not been leased out to the respondent No. 1 society on permanent lease. Respondent No. 1 society was directed not to construct the house and in case of activities of construction of house continues then action will be taken against respondent No. 1 society under the provisions of M.P. Vinirdista Brashta Acharan Adhiniyam. Ex.P/10 is the letter issued by the Collector, Indore dated 9.1.84, whereby Revenue Commissioner, Indore was informed that there are 1455 members in the respondent No. 1 society, out of which respondent No. 1 society has already alloted plots to 1228 members and 863 members have already constructed their houses. It was further informed by Collector, Indore in the said letter that vide letter dated 19.5.95 the then President of the respondent No. 1 society has intimated the appellant that respondent No. 1 society wants to keep 25 acres of land for housing scheme. It was further informed by Collector, Indore in the said letter that vide letter dated 19.5.95 the then President of the respondent No. 1 society has intimated the appellant that respondent No. 1 society wants to keep 25 acres of land for housing scheme. Vide letter dated 13.12.66 Tehsildar, Indore has already taken back possession of the rest of land except 25 acres of land. It was further stated in the said letter that in fact respondent No. 1 society is in occupation of 106.15 acres of land in addition to 25 acres of land. It was also stated that possession of the respondent No. 1 society on 106.15 acres was treated as encroacher and fine was also imposed on the respondent No. 1 society. However, lateron the order passed by Tehsildar was set aside. In the said letter it is also stated that out of the suit land respondent No. 1 society is in occupation of 106.15 acres of land out of which members of respondent No. 1 society has already constructed houses on the land measuring 60.46 acres and on the rest of the land respondent No. 1 society has already completed the development work. It was alleged that if the lease rent is calculated on the basis of per square feet then it will not be possible for the respondent No. 1 society to deposit the same. It was requested that the amount of premium be determined @ Rs. 1,94,028.30 and yearly lease rent be fixed @ Rs. 9,701.45. Ex.P/11 is the notice under section 80 CPC. Ex.P/12 is the acknowledgment. Ex.P/13 is the resolution, whereby President of the respondent No. 1 society was authorized to file suit. Apart from this respondent No. 1 society has examined Shivramdas as PW-1. 18. During pendency of appeal an application was filed by the intervenor on 28.10.93 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, wherein it was stated that lease has been executed by the appellant State in favour of the intervenor on 3.4.93, therefore, intervenor Trust be impleaded as party. Apart from this respondent No. 1 society has examined Shivramdas as PW-1. 18. During pendency of appeal an application was filed by the intervenor on 28.10.93 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, wherein it was stated that lease has been executed by the appellant State in favour of the intervenor on 3.4.93, therefore, intervenor Trust be impleaded as party. This application was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 16.4.94 holding that the judgment was passed by the trial Court on 25.2.92 and if thereafter appellant State has transferred any part of land or handed over possession to the intervenor then the judgment is binding as per provisions of section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, therefore, there is no necessity to implead the intervenor as party. At the time when application was dismissed oral prayer was made by the intervenor to give right of hearing under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC but that prayer was rejected because it was an oral prayer. 19. On 7.10.94 an application was filed by the appellant State under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. Another application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on the same day. Alongwith these two applications six documents were filed by the appellant. Description of each of them are as under: (i) Application dated 29.12.81 submitted by respondent No. 1 society to the Collector, Indore, wherein it was stated that vide lease agreement dated 25.4.49 land measuring 441.61 acres was alloted to the respondent No. 1 society for residential purposes out of which respondent No. 1 society intends to keep 106 acres of land upon which development activities are already completed. It was also stated that respondent No. 1 society has already deposited a sum of Rs. 22,000/-towards lease rent and amount, if any, outstanding society is ready to deposit. It was also prayed that by modifying the lease for the land measuring 106 acres the orders be passed. It was also stated that Nazul is raising the construction in the area, which is alloted to the respondent No. 1 society, therefore, necessary orders be passed for removal of construction. It was also prayed that by modifying the lease for the land measuring 106 acres the orders be passed. It was also stated that Nazul is raising the construction in the area, which is alloted to the respondent No. 1 society, therefore, necessary orders be passed for removal of construction. (ii) Letter dated 7.1.82 issued by Collector, Indore to the Secretary, Land Measurement and Settlement Department, wherein it was stated that vide letter dated 19.5.53 respondent No. 1 society has shown its desire to continue the lease for 25 acres of land, thereafter vide letter dated 13.12.66 Tehsildar, Indore has informed that after leaving 25 acres of land, possession has already been taken by the State. It was also alleged in the said letter that action was taken against Shri Shivramdas Pachori, President and the members of the respondent No. 1 society for encroachment of the land bearing survey No. 717/1 and 103/1 measuring 51.35 acres. In the said letter it was also stated that it is practically not possible for settlement for each of the individual plot as number of houses has been constructed and number of plots have been alloted and developed, therefore, it was recommended that as per the condition of the State Government dated 1.4.68 the premium be decided for the plots which have been sub-leased up to 1980. In the said recommendation it was also stated that out of the land measuring 441.61 acres lease has already been accepted for 25 acres of land and the name of respondent No. 1 society has also been mutated. It was also stated in the said letter that upon spot inspection it was found that apart from the land measuring 25 acres the respondent No. 1 society has also taken possession of 106.15 acres of land out of which houses has been constructed on 60.46 acres of land and development work has completed on 45.60 acres of land. It was also stated in the said letter that upon spot inspection it was found that apart from the land measuring 25 acres the respondent No. 1 society has also taken possession of 106.15 acres of land out of which houses has been constructed on 60.46 acres of land and development work has completed on 45.60 acres of land. It was also stated that since the possession of the respondent No. 1 society on 106.15 acres of land was as of encroacher, therefore, respondent No. 1 society is restrained to carry on the activities against which representation was filed by respondent No. 1 society and after holding meeting vide letter dated 29.12.81 President of the respondent society has informed that respondent No. 1 society is ready to surrender rest of the land except 310.46 acres of land on which development has completed. By this letter it was also informed that thus the respondent No. 1 society is ready to surrender 106.15 acres of land. In the said letter it was recommended that respondent No. 1 society be given land in addition to 25 acres of land. The premium, lease rent and interest, which shall be payable by respondent No. 1 society was also recommended by the said letter. (iii) Letter dated 6.8.86 issued by the State Government to the Collector, Indore, whereby Collector, Indore was informed that except 106.15 acres of land out of 441.61 acres of land should be got surrender and the respondent No. 1 society be directed to deposit the lease rent of Rs. 2,79,65,306.80 paise and interest totaling Rs. 3,49,566.35 paise alongwith interest @ 14% per annum within a period of one year. Further condition was also imposed that respondent No. 1 society shall allot the land to its members in chronological order and none of the member shall be given plot having an area more than 3000 sq.ft. (iv) Representation dated 11.12.61 given by Tehsildar, Indore to Collector, Indore, whereby Collector, Indore was informed that it was only 25 acres of land which was given to respondent No. 1 society, who was required to deposit the lease rent @ Rs. 10/- per acre and this relaxation was only for four years, which came to an end in the year 1958. 10/- per acre and this relaxation was only for four years, which came to an end in the year 1958. It was requested that information be collected from respondent No. 1 society that how much houses has been constructed by the respondent No. 1 society up to 1954 in each of the year, so that the lease rent can be fixed. (v) Representation dated 16.4.64 sent by Tehsildar, Indore in response to letter dated 27.7.63, whereby Collector, Indore was informed that respondent No. 1 society failed to deposit the lease rent right from 1950-51. It was alleged that vide letter dated 19.5.53 respondent No. 1 society informed that respondent No. 1 society wants to keep only 25 acres of land and no use has been made by the respondent No. 1 society for rest of the land. By this letter it was also informed by respondent No. 1 society that respondent No. 1 society wants to keep 18 acres of land of village Bangarda and seven acres of land of village Nainod totaling 25 acres and rest of the land has already surrendered. It was alleged that land, which is being kept by respondent No. 1 society is bearing survey No. 717/3/2 at village Bangarda and survey No. 307/2 and 307/4 at village Nainod. In the said representation it was also alleged that it was a burden on the respondent No. 1 society to deposit lease rent @ Rs. 10/- per acre for 25 acres of land. It was further stated in the said representation that vide order dated 25.6.64 respondent No. 1 society was directed to deposit lease rent @ Rs. 10/- per acre for the land on which the construction has been raised and for rest of the land the lease rent be paid on the settlement rate. It was also stated that the relaxation was given to the respondent No. 1 society for four years and it was not made clear that in case of failure on the part of respondent No. 1 society in not raising the construction within the stipulated period, entire lease rent shall be recovered from respondent No. 1 society. In the said representation it was also stated that it is surprising that the present President of respondent No. 1 society was having no knowledge of these facts and has requested for possession of 416.61 acres of land. In the said representation it was also stated that it is surprising that the present President of respondent No. 1 society was having no knowledge of these facts and has requested for possession of 416.61 acres of land. It was alleged that land bearing survey No. 717/1 and 717/3 is the Government land and occupation of the respondent No. 1 society is as of encroacher. (vi) Application dated 31.3.77 issued by respondent No. 1 society to the Chief Minister of the State, wherein it was stated that because of various reasons respondent No. 1 society could not develop 441.61 acres of land and has developed only 95 acres of land. It was alleged that rest of 346.41 acres of land has been surrendered by the respondent No. 1 society, which can be sold by the appellant State for recovery of lease rent amount. It was alleged that vide order dated 4.6.54 the lease rent was asked @ Rs. 10/- per acre per year while the respondent No. 1 society is in occupation of only 95 acres of land and this fact has been brought to the notice of the Collector, Indore repeatedly. In the said application it was requested that 95 acres of land be given on lease to the respondent No. 1 society and rest of 346.61 acres of land can be given by the appellant State to others. 20. Applications filed by appellant State were opposed by the respondent No. 1 society on the ground that no sufficient ground is made out by the appellant State to file those documents at the proper stage before the trial Court, therefore, the applications cannot be entertained. The applications were dismissed by the appellate Court by separate orders dated 12.4.96 on the ground that without taking into consideration the documents, which has been filed by the appellant State the validity of the judgment passed by the trial Court can be examined on the basis of the record, which was available before the learned trial Court at the time of passing of the judgment. Another reason which was assigned by the trial Court for dismissal of the applications is that the land could have been taken back by the appellant State only upon violation of terms of Ex.P/2. Another reason which was assigned by the trial Court for dismissal of the applications is that the land could have been taken back by the appellant State only upon violation of terms of Ex.P/2. In the matter of Abdul Aziz Abdul Rafique Kadri v. Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh AIR 2010 (NOC) 758, in a case wherein in the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, words "in spite of due diligence documents were beyond control of party and hence could not be filed in Court" were missing, Bombay High Court held that it is a matter of spirit to be noted than technicality of language of pleadings. In the matter of Shyam Gopal Bindal v. Land Acquisition Officer (2010) 2 SCC 316 , while considering the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the documents sought to be produced are judicial orders declaring ownership rights of the appellant which had a crucial bearing on merits of the claim put forward by the appellant. It was also observed that consideration of the documents are necessary for just decision of the case. 21. In the matter K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc. (2007) 14 SCC 257 , Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Court must see whether evidence is required by it to do justice between the parties and in pronouncement of judgment to its own satisfaction. In the matter of Lachman Singh v. Hazara Singh (2008) 5 SCC 444 , Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction of the appellate Court is to be exercised not only when Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 Order 41 of the Code is attracted but also when such a document is required by the appellate Court itself to pronounce judgment. In the matter of North Eastern Railway v. Bhagwan Das (2008) 8 SCC 511 , Apex Court observed that the question whether looking into the documents, sought to be filed as additional evidence, would be necessary to pronounce judgment in a more satisfactory manner, has to be considered by the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. The appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment" but also for "any other substantial cause". The appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment" but also for "any other substantial cause". Though the general rule is that ordinarily the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower Court and additional evidence, whether oral or documentary is not admitted, but section CPC, which carves out an exception to the general rule, enables an appellate Court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. These conditions are prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 22. In the suit respondent No. 1 society has claimed declaration of status of respondent No. 1 society on the land measuring 441.61 acres of land and claiming possession of the land, which is mentioned in para 6 of the plaint. As per the respondent No. 1 society, respondent No. 1 society is in occupation of 177 acres of land and possession is claimed of 271.44 acres of land. Respondent No. 1 society has not submitted the full area of land of which the possession is claimed. Alongwith the suit respondent No. 1 society has not submitted the map of the colony, which has been developed by it. There is nothing on record to show that any sanction was taken by the respondent No. 1 society by Town and Country Development Authority, Indore as the land is in the city or from any competent Authority to develop the colony. Respondent No. 1 society has also not mentioned list of the members of the society to whom respondent No. 1 society has already alloted the plots and also the area of each of the plot holders. It is also not on record that whether members of the society has obtained any permission for construction of the house. 23. From perusal of the judgment impugned herein it appears that learned Courts below has not taken into consideration Ex.P/10, which is the representation dated 9.8.84 submitted by Collector, Indore to Revenue Commissioner in right prospective. It is also not on record that whether members of the society has obtained any permission for construction of the house. 23. From perusal of the judgment impugned herein it appears that learned Courts below has not taken into consideration Ex.P/10, which is the representation dated 9.8.84 submitted by Collector, Indore to Revenue Commissioner in right prospective. Apart from this, this Court is of the view that there was no justification on the part of learned appellate Court in dismissing the application filed by the appellant State under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC alongwith various documents, which goes to the root of the case to decide the real controversy between the parties. It appears that right from beginning prayer of respondent No. 1 society is that only 25 acres of land be given to respondent No. 1 society and rest of the land be treated as surrendered. Thereafter submission of respondent No. 1 society was that the land, which has already been developed be given to the respondent No. 1 society and rest of the land be treated as surrendered. From perusal of record it is evident that application filed by the appellant State for taking the documents on record was filed by the appellant State before learned appellate Court on 7.10.94 and the application was dismissed vide order dated 12.4.96. Thus after filing of documents also the appeal remained pending for more than two years. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that learned appellate Court was not justified in confirming the decree passed by the trial Court, which has decreed the suit. This Court is of the view that the documents submitted by the appellant State alongwith application under Order41 Rule 27 CPC before the learned appellate Court and also before this Court are necessary for just disposal of suit and the appellate Court was not justified in refusing to admit additional evidence, which ought to have been admitted. This Court is also of the view that the action of the appellant State in issuing notice Ex.P/9 dated 23.2.84 was not unjustified. In the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the appellant State is allowed and the order and judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is set aside. This Court is also of the view that the action of the appellant State in issuing notice Ex.P/9 dated 23.2.84 was not unjustified. In the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the appellant State is allowed and the order and judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is set aside. Since the application filed by the appellant State under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed, therefore, judgment passed by learned trial Court is also set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court with a liberty to the parties to amend their pleadings and to take the documents on record filed by the appellant State before this Court and also before learned appellate Court. Learned trial Court is directed to re-decide the suit after framing of additional issues, if any. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.11.2010. 24. Before proceeding further respondent No. 1 society is directed to submit: (i) The map of the land indicating plot numbers, which has already been developed by respondent No. 1 society. In the said map respondent No. 1 society shall indicate the plots over which house has already been completed and the plots over which houses are under construction and the plots over which no construction activities has yet started. (ii) Respondent No. 1 society shall furnish details of permission of development, which has been obtained by respondent No. 1 society from the competent authority. (iii) Respondent No. 1 society shall also disclose that the houses, which has been constructed by its members are after the permission of municipal corporation or not. (iv) Respondent No. 1 society shall submit a statement of all the members to whom the plots were allotted alongwith plot numbers, date of registration of sub-lease, area of plot and survey number In the statement respondent No. 1 society shall also indicate the name of original allottees and the name of transferee/occupant with full particulars. (v) Respondent No. 1 society shall furnish a statement, wherein details of the application shall be mentioned, which are pending for consideration for allotment of plots. (v) Respondent No. 1 society shall furnish a statement, wherein details of the application shall be mentioned, which are pending for consideration for allotment of plots. (vi) Respondent No. 1 society shall furnish the explanation relating to execution of registered sublease in favour of its members mentioning the survey numbers, which were not allotted to respondent No. 1 society by Ex.P/2 and of which possession was not given to respondent No. 1 society vide receipt Ex.P/3. (vii) Respondent No. 1 society shall also explain that how sub-lease were executed of the land for which the respondent No. 1 society has claimed possession in the suit. (viii) Respondent No. 1 society shall furnish the statement of premium and lease rent deposited by the respondent No. 1 society. (ix) Respondent No. 1 society shall submit audited balance sheets of the society. 25. It is made clear that respondent No. 1 society shall not allot any plot to its members till the rights of respondent No. 1 society are decided and also shall not allow any of its members to raise construction without obtaining the permission from the competent authority. 26. with the aforesaid observations appeal stands disposed of.