JUDGMENT Jaishree Thakur, J. - By this order, this Court proposes to dispose of the above titled Civil Revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as the Regular Second Appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram as well as the private parties, seeking to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurugram, dated 31.8.2018, vide which the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, decreeing the suits of the plaintiffs therein were set aside, while partly allowing the appeals. 2. These cases have a common chequered history and, therefore, to try and understand the dispute involved in these cases, it would be necessary to take into account a few details. 3. The subject matter of the dispute pertains to the rights of landowners of about 300 acres of land comprised in revenue estate of village Gwal Pahari, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram. The plaintiffs (some of the appellants herein), being the landowners, successors in interest of the original proprietors of village etc. had filed civil suits before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, seeking a declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit property situated within the revenue estate of village Gwal Pahari, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram, claiming a right in the property being successors in interest of the original proprietors of the village either by way of inheritance or purchase of the land, while also seeking that the eviction notices issued under Section 408A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act 1994 along with mutation 96, 3110 and 3249 be declared as illegal, null and void ab-initio. Permanent injunction was also sought against the defendants therein i.e. State of Haryana, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, and the revenue authorities restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession, construction and use of the land in any manner. In the suit, it was claimed that the plaintiffs are owners in settled possession over the suit land, which was recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kabja Jamin, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1906-07. Earlier also the land was in possession of the proprietors of the village as late as 1940-41 and the land was reflected as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kabja Jamin in the revenue record. Earlier also the land was in possession of the proprietors of the village as late as 1940-41 and the land was reflected as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kabja Jamin in the revenue record. In both the jamabandies, the proprietors of the land were shown to be in possession of the suit property with the entry Makbooza Malkan. Subsequently, with the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1953 being notified, Mutation 96 dated 31.03.1955, came into effect illegally showing the Gram Panchayat, Gawal Pahari to be in possession of the same, even though the Panchayat never took possession of the land and the same remained in cultivating possession of the proprietors of the village. The said notification was stayed and ultimately the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 came into force and the land in dispute came under the exception of Section 2 (g) of Act of 1961 and the land was described as shamlat deh. 4. On 5.11.1980, the proprietors of the village filed a suit in a representative capacity before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurugram titled Prem Raj and others Versus Gram Panchayat, Gwal Pahari, on the ground that the proprietors were owners in cultivating possession of the land measuring about 6145 kanals prior to 26.1.1950 and as such the land did not fall within the definition of shamlat deh, apart from taking other pleas therein. The said suit was dismissed on 11.12.1986. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Collector, who too dismissed the appeal on 25.7.1987. Still feeling dissatisfied, an appeal was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, who remanded the matter and finally the Collector, Gurugram, vide order dated 15.2.1989, partly decreed the representative suit. The order of the Collector, Gurugram, was challenged before the Commissioner, Gurugram, who vide order dated 1.8.1990 once again remanded the matter to the Collector, with the direction to recalculate the shares properly. 5. In the meantime, against the order dated 1.8.1990, the Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition before this Court, being CWP No. 16719 of 1990, which was eventually dismissed as withdrawn on 22.9.2000. However, on an LPA No 106 of 2006 (titled The Gram Panchayat Vs. 5. In the meantime, against the order dated 1.8.1990, the Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition before this Court, being CWP No. 16719 of 1990, which was eventually dismissed as withdrawn on 22.9.2000. However, on an LPA No 106 of 2006 (titled The Gram Panchayat Vs. The Commissioner, Gurgaon & others), being filed by the Gram Panchayat, against the order passed in CWP No. 16719 of 1990, the order dated 22.9.2000 was recalled on 5.2.2010 with a direction to the Collector to take appropriate decision regarding the nature of the land in accordance with law after giving opportunities to all the affected parties. In the meantime by notification dated 20.3.2010, the land came to vest with the Municipal Corporation, with the result that fresh suits were filed seeking declaration to the effect that the landowners are in possession of the suit properties and the land is not Shamlat Deh. Subsequent to the matter pending before the civil court (since the revenue authorities by its order in 1980 had held that these are matter for the civil court to decide), a writ petition being CWP 7112 of 2017 titled Harinder Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana and others was filed in this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction for handing over the inquiry in the matter of sanction of mutation 3110 dated 2.7.2012 in respect of land measuring 3717 kanals and 1 marlas, which was earlier vested in the Gram Panchayat, Gwal Pahari since the year 1940-41 and now vests in the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, as there was a major land scam involving various revenue officials/officers and bureaucrats, while further seeking a direction to decide the issue of mutation in respect of the land of erstwhile Gram Panchayat Gwal Pahari, which now vests with the Municipal Corporation, by virtue of notification dated 20.3.2010. A Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, gave the following directions:- "It may be noticed that in fact the determination of the land, as to whether it is 'shamlat deh' or not, is primarily to be considered on the basis of revenue records and entries. A Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, gave the following directions:- "It may be noticed that in fact the determination of the land, as to whether it is 'shamlat deh' or not, is primarily to be considered on the basis of revenue records and entries. Oral evidence in such a case is not of much help or for that matter even necessary; besides, it may be noticed that the parties have filed voluminous documents in the shape of revenue records, which may not be connected with the land that is claimed in the Civil Suit and is detailed in paras 3 and 4 of the Civil Suit (Annexure A-58). It would in fact be just and proper if in each case, the parties confine their documentation to the land only that is claimed by them instead of attaching the revenue records of the entire village which not only creates confusion but makes the paper book unnecessarily voluminous. It would be prudent if the khasra numbers of the land which are claimed are identified and the synopsis of the same based on year wise 'Jamabandi' is given with details and the manner in which the transactions in respect of the same have been carried out, that would suffice for the proper adjudication of the case. It needs to be specifically determined as to whether the land would be 'shamlat deh' or not in accordance with law. 6. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurugram, who decided the issues as framed by the consolidated judgment rendered by him in the Civil Suit titled Mahesh Versus Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon and others. By a common judgment, 118 civil suits filed by the villagers, which were consolidated, were decreed, declaring the plaintiffs to be owners in possession over their respective suit lands and also declaring the eviction notices issued under Section 408A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act 1994 by the Municipal Corporation Gurugram, and mutation No. 96, 3110 and 3249 as illegal, null and void ab-initio and set aside the same. Further the defendants were restrained from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession, ownership, construction and use of the land by the plaintiff's. 7. Further the defendants were restrained from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession, ownership, construction and use of the land by the plaintiff's. 7. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Municipal Corporation as well as the State of Haryana filed 226 civil appeals, which, as already noticed above, were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Gurugram, by his common order dated 31.8.2018, out of which judgment the instant Civil Revisions as well as Regular Second Appeals have been preferred. 8. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vijay Gupta and Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocates, inter-alia, argued that the Additional District Judge has acted with undue haste, without following the settled procedure as prescribed under law, while allowing an application for additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued that the decree drawn up in the appeal was not in consonance with the Form No. 9, Appendix G, (Order XLI, Rule 35) of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the plaintiffs in the representative suit filed before the revenue authorities (those who had initially challenged the land being declared as shamlat deh ) have been transposed as the appellants namely, Prem Raj and others, while transposing the defendants therein in a similar fashion. It is submitted that as per sub Rule (2) of Order 41 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellate Court decree should contain the number of the appeal, the names and descriptions of the appellant and the respondent, and a clear specification of the relief granted or other adjudication made. It is submitted that the decree passed by the first Appellate Court is unknown to the law and procedure adopted by him. The first Appellate Court ought to have passed an independent decree in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 35 of Order of the Code of Civil Procedure describing the 'appellant' and 'respondent' and clearly specifying the relief granted. On the contrary, he adopted a strange procedure as he called for the civil suit filed by the villagers in a representative capacity titled Prem Raj and others Vs. Gram Panchayat, which had already been decided and consigned to the record and decided the same as a civil suit without even issuing notice to the legal representatives of the plaintiffs namely, Prem Raj etc. Gram Panchayat, which had already been decided and consigned to the record and decided the same as a civil suit without even issuing notice to the legal representatives of the plaintiffs namely, Prem Raj etc. as some of the plaintiffs had expired. It is argued that the judgment as rendered has not dealt with any of the issue or discussed the evidence that has been adduced on record by the landowners. It is also argued that a necessity arose to file a Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Gurugram, dated 31.8.2018 since in the decree as drawn up in the appeal filed by the Municipal Cooperation, there is no mention of the petitioner-Multimatrix Reality Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the decree drawn up itself was faulty being not in accordance with the procedure. Therefore, in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioners, they have challenged the judgment and decree in the Regular Second Appeal as well. 9. Per contra, Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation would contend that the Civil Revision itself is not maintainable since a Regular Second Appeal has been filed, while further contending that the Additional District Judge has returned a finding in favour of the Municipal Corporation holding the land to be shamlat deh and, therefore, a well reasoned judgment passed by the first Appellate Court should not be interfered with. 10. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, supports the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the pleadings in the Civil Revision No. 94 of 2019 as well as the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurugram. 12. The judgment and decree as passed by the Additional District Judge is incomprehensible. At the first instance, this Court is unable to understand as to how the "plaintiffs" in suit/proceedings filed before the revenue authorities could be planted as "appellants" in the appeal filed against the petitioners herein. 12. The judgment and decree as passed by the Additional District Judge is incomprehensible. At the first instance, this Court is unable to understand as to how the "plaintiffs" in suit/proceedings filed before the revenue authorities could be planted as "appellants" in the appeal filed against the petitioners herein. Before the Additional District Judge, the memo of parties at the time of filing the appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurugram, reads as "Municipal Corporation, Gurugram Versus M/s Metro Valley Business Park Pvt. Ltd." A reading of the impugned judgment would reflect nonapplication of mind . Para 67 of the impugned judgment reads as under:- "67. In view of above discussion, the claim of proprietors in the representative suit 'Prem Raj & Others Vs. Gram Panchayat' is devoid of merits and the suit is liable to be dismissed, if this Court has the authority to declare so. Let a decree-sheet of representative suit "Prem Raj & Others Vs. Gram Panchayat' be prepared accordingly, to bury this litigation for all the times to come." 13. Apart from this, a glaring infirmity and which is of grave concern is as to how the Additional District Judge dealt with the appeal and the manner in which the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed. The appeal was filed on 18.5.2018 and notice issued for 21.5.2018 on which date an application for additional evidence was also preferred. Notice was issued again to the respondents on the main appeal as well on the application filed under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Court directed that the notice be issued to the counsel for the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs were in hundreds. Thereafter, by order dated 24.7.2018, he held the service to be complete as vakalatnamas had been filed by same counsel, who were representing the plaintiffs in the trial court. He heard arguments on 14.8.2018 and thereafter heard arguments again on 16.8.2018 and adjourned the matter for 18.8.2018. The case was then adjourned to 24.8.2018 on which date he summoned the record pertaining to the representative suit filed as Prem Raj and others Vs. He heard arguments on 14.8.2018 and thereafter heard arguments again on 16.8.2018 and adjourned the matter for 18.8.2018. The case was then adjourned to 24.8.2018 on which date he summoned the record pertaining to the representative suit filed as Prem Raj and others Vs. Gram Panchayat, which, after decision, had already been consigned to the record room of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, It is pertinent to note that these proceedings were not pending before him as they stood consigned and the matter being agitated was under the Punjab Village Common (Regulation) Act 1961. The application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to lead additional evidence was disposed of along with the appeals i.e. on 31.8.2018 in the following manner:- "9. In view of above discussion, this court is of the view that 35 documents out of proposed 41 documents (leaving 6 documents already running tendered in rebuttal evidence) are essential to arrive at a just and reasonable conclusion, that is say, essential to enable this court to pronounce proper judgment, in the interest of justice. Hence, application seeking permission to lead additional evidence is, hereby, allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is, hereby, directed to tender these 35 documents in additional evidence as Exh. D39 to Exh D73 by making a statement which has to be recorded separately. Let copy of these exhibits be supplied to learned counsel for respondents/appellant forthwith. 10. Keeping in view of discussion and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court find no necessity to keep the matter pending for the mere formality of granting opportunity to the respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal as the additional evidence led today is actually happens to be the left-over evidence of the respondents which they had led on 2.4.2018 by placing on record Exh. P129 to Exh. P.134." ( emphasis supplied) . 14. The reasoning adopted by the Additional District Judge, while allowing the application for additional evidence, shows a total lack of judicial approach and against all cannons of law and procedure. The Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Akhilesh Singh alias Akhileshwar Singh Versus Lal Babu Singh and others, (2018) 4 SCC 659 , while dealing with the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure held as under:- "12. The Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Akhilesh Singh alias Akhileshwar Singh Versus Lal Babu Singh and others, (2018) 4 SCC 659 , while dealing with the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure held as under:- "12. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which deals with the provision of additional evidence in appellate court, provides for the grounds and circumstances on which appellate court may allow such evidence or documents or witnesses to be examined. Order 41 Rule 27 sub-rule (2) further provides that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate court, the court shall record a reason for its admission. Order 41 Rule 27 is silent as to the procedure to be adopted by the High Court after admission of additional evidence. Whether after admission of additional evidence, it is necessary for the appellate court to grant opportunity to the other party to lead evidence in rebuttal or to give any opportunity is not expressly provided in order 41 rule 27. xx xx xx 15. A three-Judge Bench of this court in LAO v. H.Narayanaish, (1976) 4 SCC 9 had occasion to consider Order 41 Rule 27 in context of admission of additional evidence by the appellate court. This court had observed that in the event the High Court admits an additional evidence, an opportunity should have been given to the other party to rebut any inference arising from its existence by leading evidence. In para 28 of the judgment, following has been laid down (SCC p.20). xx xx xx 16. To the same effect is another judgment of this Court in Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills, (2010) 8 SCC 423 . In this case also, the Court had occasion to consider Order 41 Rule 27. This court has again laid down that when documents are taken in additional evidence, an opportunity out to have been given to other party to lead evidence in rebuttal." 15. In a recent judgment the Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of Madras and another Versus M. Parthasarathy and others, (2018) 9 SCC 445 held as under:- "Once, additional evidence is permitted at appellate stage, other side must be given opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence to counter additional evidence. In a recent judgment the Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of Madras and another Versus M. Parthasarathy and others, (2018) 9 SCC 445 held as under:- "Once, additional evidence is permitted at appellate stage, other side must be given opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence to counter additional evidence. xx xx xx Appellate Courts have two options (i) to take recourse remanding entire matter under Order 41 Rule 23-A for retrial, or (ii) to make limited remand under Order 41 Rule 25 by retaining main appeal with itself so that parties can lead evidence on particular issues in light of additional evidence and then to decide main appeal on merits." 16. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the observation of the first Appellate Court to the effect that "...this court find no necessity to keep the matter pending for the mere formality of granting opportunity to the respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal as the additional evidence led today...", while allowing the application for additional evidence, are absolutely against the law. The first Appellate Court ought to have given due opportunity to the petitioners and the other affected parties to lead evidence in rebuttal, particularly when the stakes of the parties, involving a huge chunk of land, was high. For the sake of repetition, the landowners in possession are seeking to challenge the status of the land shown in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh and these landowners had a judgment and decree in their favour. 17. Apart from the above, the Additional District Judge has adopted an unknown and unusual procedure by directing his Reader to address a letter to Sh. Prashant Rana, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, to the following effect:- "To Sh. Prashant Rana, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurugram Sir, Please find enclosed herewith copy of the operating paras of judgment dated 31.8.2018 passed by Shri Jasbir Singh Kundu, learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, its decree sheet along with record relating to representative suit bearing No. 12/SDO titled as 'Prem Raj & others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Gwal Pahari & Others, instituted on 05.11.1980 before the revenue court, for being entered the same as a civil suit and for consignment of this record. Submitted please Yours faithfully Sd/- (Pardeep Kumar) Reader in the Court of Sh. JS Kundu, AD&SJ Gurugram." 18. Gram Panchayat, Gwal Pahari & Others, instituted on 05.11.1980 before the revenue court, for being entered the same as a civil suit and for consignment of this record. Submitted please Yours faithfully Sd/- (Pardeep Kumar) Reader in the Court of Sh. JS Kundu, AD&SJ Gurugram." 18. This Court fails to understand how a decree of the Civil Court can be ordered to be entered as a decree in a representative suit bearing No. 12/SDO titled Prem Raj & others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Gwal Pahari & others, in a suit which had been instituted before the revenue court and stood decided and consigned to the record room. This again shows lack of knowledge of the law and the procedure to be adopted, while deciding the cases. The irregularity and the illegality committed by the Additional District Judge, which is apparent on the face of record, while passing the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. 19. Consequently, since all the parties, be it the landowners or the Municipal Corporation are aggrieved against the judgment and decree, the revisions as well as the Regular Second Appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurugram, along with the order passed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Gurugram, with a direction to decide the civil appeals arising out of the judgment and decree of the trial court as well as the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure afresh, after giving due opportunity to the all. Needless to mention that any observations made hereinabove would have no bearing on the merit of the case and the appeals are required to be decided in terms of the evidence led or to be led by the parties. 20. Since the matter is of great importance and as a huge chunk of land involving a large number of litigants are involved, it is desirable that these appeals are taken up for hearing and decided by the District Judge, Gurugram, himself, expeditiously. 21. In the meantime, till the disposal of the appeals by the District Judge, the parties are hereby restrained from alienating or creating any third party rights on the land, so as to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. 22. 21. In the meantime, till the disposal of the appeals by the District Judge, the parties are hereby restrained from alienating or creating any third party rights on the land, so as to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. 22. The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Gurugram, on 18.12.2019.