Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The suit was one for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a site measuring about 10 guntas. It was the case of the plaintiff that it is a Trust constituted under a Trust Deed, dated 27.8.1993. Plaintiffs 1 to 9 were the Trustees. The main objective of the Trust was to provide education to the weaker sections of society and the plaintiffs were running a Pre-University and First Grade College, in the name and style of Jawaharlal Nehru Educational Trust College, at Viveknagar, Bangalore in a rented premises, since 1993. Therefore, with a view to expand the institution, the plaintiffs had thought it fit to shift the college premises to Domlur, where the suit schedule property is situated. It transpires that the plaintiffs had actually acquired 21 guntas of land, of which, 11 guntas had to be surrendered for the purpose of formation of a inner ring road by the Bangalore Development Authority. Insofar as the 10 guntas of land are concerned, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike had demanded a sum of Rs.5,77,634/-, towards the cost of land and conversion charges and the same was paid on 22.8.1994. On such payment, the Trust was placed in possession of the land on certain terms and conditions. It is thereafter that 11 guntas had to be surrendered in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority, on the assurance that the plaintiff - Trust would be provided alternative land, in lieu of the land that was acquired for the purpose of formation of a inner ring road. 3. In this background, it is stated that the defendant, alleging that there was interference by the plaintiff, is said to have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.10010/1997 against the appellant, who was the defendant therein and there was an ex-parte decree in favour of the present defendant, who was the plaintiff therein. On the strength of the decree thus obtained, there was active interference with the suit schedule property. It was at that stage, that the plaintiff was also driven to file a civil suit in O.S.No.11452/1998. The present suit was contested by the defendant. On the strength of the decree thus obtained, there was active interference with the suit schedule property. It was at that stage, that the plaintiff was also driven to file a civil suit in O.S.No.11452/1998. The present suit was contested by the defendant. The court below on the basis of the pleadings had framed the following issues:- "1) Whether the plaintiff Trust proves that it is in possession of the suit schedule property as owner? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is attempting to remove the fencing, to get into the suit schedule property as averred in para No.18 of the plaint? 3 Whether the defendant proves that the suit is hit by doctrine of resjudicata in-view of filing of O.S.No.10010/1997 by him against the Trust, as averred in para no.2 of the written-statement? 4. Whether the defendant proves that, he is in exclusive possession of site No.550 as averred in para No.5 of the written-statement? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves that, it is entitled to the relief as prayed for? "The trial court answered issues 1 to 3 and 5 in the negative and issue no.4 in the affirmative and has dismissed the suit. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that the first reason assigned by the court in dismissing the suit was that there was a decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the defendant in O.S.No.10010/1997. Therefore, the relief prayed for in the present suit, in respect of the very same property, could not be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Secondly, it was stated that several documents, which were sought to be referred to in the plaint and in the evidence of the plaintiff, were never produced before the court and there were admissions as regards a site, which was claimed by the defendant, bearing no.550 shown in the very document produced by the plaintiff, namely, Exhibit P.21 and hence, there was a serious doubt about the bona fides of the plaintiff and has proceeded to dismiss the suit. Therefore, the present plaintiff, who has been able to secure the documents that were relied upon in the suit and which were unfortunately not produced before the trial court, has sought to produce the same now before this court, along with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC', for brevity). The documents that are sought to be produced as additional documents are the following:- "1. True copy of the Gazette Notification dated 21.12.1989. 2. True copy of the Mutation registrar. 3. True copy of the record of rights. 4. True copy of the agreement dated 29.10.1986 executed by BDA in favour of Amarajyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited. 5. True copy of the Relinquishment deed executed on 30.11.1992 by Amarajyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited. 6. True copy of the receipt regarding the payment of the copying fee. 7. True copy of the letter dated 21.12.2010 from Deputy Commissioner's Office, Bangalore. 8. True copy of the Office proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner Bangalore (Urban), Bangalore. 9. True copy of the receipt 22.8.1994 regarding payment of Rs.5,77,634/-. 10. True copy of the letter dated 12.4.1994 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. 11. True copy of the letter dated 19.5.1994 from the Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka. 12. True copy of the letter dated 19.5.1994 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. 13. True copy of the letter dated 6.6.1994 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. 14. True copy of the letter dated 25.8.1994 issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. 15. True copy of the Order dated 31.8.1994 passed by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. 16. True copy of the order dated 8.5.1987/3.7.1987 passed by the Bangalore Development Authority. 17. True copy of the proceedings before Bangalore Development Authority. 18. True copy of the letter dated 27.6.1995 from the office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. 19. True copy of the letter dated 25.4.1998 from the office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. 20. True copy of the final order dated 20.7.2010 passed in Misc.No.15007/1999. 17. True copy of the proceedings before Bangalore Development Authority. 18. True copy of the letter dated 27.6.1995 from the office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. 19. True copy of the letter dated 25.4.1998 from the office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. 20. True copy of the final order dated 20.7.2010 passed in Misc.No.15007/1999. "As seen from the list of documents above, the plaintiff is armed with sufficient material to prima facie establish his title to the property and the lack of bona fides, as was presumed by the court below, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would further submit that insofar as the ex-parte decree that was obtained by the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.10010/1997 is concerned, the plaintiff had filed a miscellaneous petition seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree, in Miscellaneous Case No.15007/1999, which was allowed on 20.7.2010 and therefore, the suit has been restored to file and is being contested by the present appellant. That suit is now set down for evidence and the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and the matter is set down for the cross-examination of PW.1. Therefore, he would submit that since the dispute as regards possession is live, the present appellant having been denied the relief prayed for, only on the ground that there was no material furnished in support of his case, which is now readily available and since the same was not produced for good and sufficient reason, and the plaintiff could not inspite of due diligence produce the same, it is appropriate that, while setting aside the judgment of the court below, if the matter is remanded, the suit could be tried along with the suit filed by the defendant, which is pending consideration. This would avoid any inconsistent findings insofar as the rival claims of the parties are concerned and it would be a complete adjudication as regards the respective claim of the parties. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shaker Shetty, appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose the appeal and would seek to point out that apart from lack of documents, on the very material that was produced by the plaintiff before the trial court, the trial court has arrived at adverse findings, which would disentitle the plaintiff to any further consideration of his case. It was found that there were contradictory statements made by the plaintiff himself. It was found that there were contradictory statements made by the plaintiff himself. In that, it was denied that the defendant herein was the owner of any site, on the other hand, the layout plan produced at Exhibit P.21, in fact, contained the very site number claimed by the defendant, namely, site bearing No.550, which is marked as Ex.P-21(a) and this was one of the instances pointed out by the court below, apart from the fact that there was a decree binding the plaintiff and further that there were no documents produced by him in support of the allegations in the plaint. The learned Counsel would also submit that since the title of the plaintiff is in serious doubt, it ought to be relegated to a comprehensive suit and there is no warrant for the present appellant's suit being revived and the same being clubbed with the suit of the respondent that has gone to trial. Admittedly, PW.1 has also been examined. The exercise of remanding the matter to be clubbed with the pending suit of the defendant, would result in unwieldy proceedings of having to frame and reframe the issues requiring the court to record evidence over again, which would lead to much confusion and therefore, opposes any such relief being considered. Insofar as the additional documents sought to be produced, he would point out that unless the appellant is in a position to indicate that an application is filed bringing it within the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, it cannot be said that the application could be entertained by this court at this point of time. The claim that inspite of due diligence, the documents could not be secured or could not be produced, is a self-serving claim. The documents were very much available at the time the appellant had tendered evidence. It is not acceptable to contend that the documents were not available and hence would submit that the appeal be dismissed. The claim that inspite of due diligence, the documents could not be secured or could not be produced, is a self-serving claim. The documents were very much available at the time the appellant had tendered evidence. It is not acceptable to contend that the documents were not available and hence would submit that the appeal be dismissed. Given these rival contentions, it is evident that the suit of the appellant having been dismissed on one ground, namely, that there was a decree of permanent injunction against the appellant and further that the documents having been produced in support of the case, the decree passed against the appellant has now been set aside, and the suit is restored to file and is being contested before the trial court, it could not be said that that was a reason, which could be relevant any more. Insofar as the appellant not having produced material documents to substantiate his case, is now supplied. Notwithstanding that the reason assigned cannot readily be accepted, interest of justice would require that the court adjudicate on the same, as they are documents, which go to the root of the matter, insofar as the title and possession of the plaintiff is concerned. The other inconsistencies that are pointed out would have to be accepted as the appellant would still have to get over the same. This could be done even now by the plaintiff and if there is no explanation forth coming, it is then open for the trial court to deal with the circumstance accordingly. Further, insofar as the contention that any remand of the matter for a reconsideration would result in inconvenience and hardship and may lead to unwieldy proceedings, is a fact. This, however, is inevitable having regard to the circumstances of the case. But the hard ship and inconvenience could be off set and could be adequately compensated if the appellant is directed to pay costs to the respondent. 6. Therefore, in the light of the above contentions of the appellant, which in the opinion of this court, are reasonable and in the interest of justice, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.10010/1997. 6. Therefore, in the light of the above contentions of the appellant, which in the opinion of this court, are reasonable and in the interest of justice, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.10010/1997. It would be in the discretion of the trial court to reframe the issues, if necessary and direct the plaintiff in O.S.10010/1997 to tender such additional evidence, if warranted and to proceed in its discretion in accordance with law in deciding and adjudicating the two suits. In the circumstances of the case, it goes without saying that the present appellant plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.11452/1998 would necessarily have to tender additional evidence in support of the additional documents, that are now sought to be produced. It is appropriate that the said documents are produced in original before the trial court and the appellant lead such evidence as may be relevant. For reasons stated above, the appellant shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/-to the respondent before the trial court at the next date of hearing. The appellant is entitled to refund of the court fees under Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1974. The office is directed to remit the papers forthwith to the trial court.