JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. IN this petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, petitioners, who were respondents before the Lower Appellate Court, have assailed order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, allowing the application filed by Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short HRTC), respondent herein (appellant before the Court below), for leading additional evidence under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 2. ACCORDING to the petitioners herein, they are owners in possession of the suit land, whereas respondent HRTC, a public sector undertaking claims to be owner thereof. During the pendency of proceedings before the Court below, HRTC filed an application for placing on record certified copy of order dated 17.08.2009, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla in Revenue Appeal No. 187/2002 dated 03.09.2002. Evidently at the time when evidence was led by the parties before the trial Court, this order dated 17.08.2009 was not in existence. It is no doubt true that HRTC did obtain copy of this order in the year 2009 itself and did not place it on record, but significantly, this order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, which has attained finality, records following facts:- "I have perused the entire record and evidence placed before me. As per the present petitioner the area comprised in Khasra No. 787, 788/2, 790 and 804/2, ordered by the Collector to be recorded in the ownership and possession of the respondents, is in fact a part of old Khasra No. 99 which belonged to the HRTC. It is observed that as per the order of the settlement Collector the said Khasra numbrs are part of old Khasra No. 139/98. However, the Settlement Collector has based his findings entirely on the report of the Naib Tehsildar Settlement without himself affording an opportunity to the parties to confront the report of the Naib Tehsildars. This being the basic infirmity, the case is liable to be remanded back to the Settlement Collector to hear the parties qua their claims." Since order pertains to subject matter of the suit land and valuable rights of parties are involved, it cannot be said that Court below erred in allowing the application, for leading additional evidence. Failure would have only caused serious prejudice to the parties, whose valuable rights are likely to be affected. 3. Failure would have only caused serious prejudice to the parties, whose valuable rights are likely to be affected. 3. WITH regard to exercise of due diligence on its part, respondent has explained that officials dealing with the case file kept on changing frequently and as such, action of placing on record the order could not be taken, which explanation in the given facts, is acceptable. After all, title of land allegedly belonging to the respondent herein, is claimed by the petitioners herein. The matter can be examined from another angle. Allowing the application, in no manner prejudices the petitioners herein. 4. IT cannot be said that Court below exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failed to exercise such jurisdiction or exercised such jurisdiction in a manner, which is totally illegal/bearing material irregularity. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons, present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Interim order dated 21.09.2013 is vacated.