1985 PLP 1789 (SCMR)

Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Dastgir Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st July, 1985. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 258‑R of 1985 and 268‑R of 1985. In both the petitions the petitioners are the same and there is a common question for determination. The petitioners are the vendees of the suit land in respect of which two mutations bearing No. 2535 and No. 2545 were sanctioned on 20th November 1975 and 24th November 1975 in pursuance of two decrees obtained as a result of a compromise between respondents Nos. 2 to 10 and respondents Nos. 11 and 12, respectively. Respondent No. 1 instituted four suits of pre‑emption in 1976. Suits Nos. 594/1 and 595/1 were stayed under section 29 of the N.W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act while two suits bearing Nos. 251/1 and 252/1 proceeded to a completion and by separate judgments, dated 28th October, 1978 were dismissed by the Civil Judge, Mansehra, holding in each case that respondent No. 1 had no superior right of pre‑emption. It transpires that in each case after the evidence was closed and the case was reserved for judgment, respondent No. 1 filed separate applications seeking to lead additional evidence to establish that his grand‑father had died on 10th June 1969 and that an inheritance mutation was sanctioned in his favour as 'Malak' and 'co‑sharer in the Khata'. The trial Court rejected the applications on 2nd January 1968 on the ground that these applications had been filed at a belated stage and were intended to delay the disposal of the cases. Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed civil revisions in each case before the District Judge Mansehra against this order but the civil revisions were dismissed on the ground that they were not competent. On appeal against the dismissal of the suits the appellate Court held that the applications in the trial Court were rightly rejected as they were filed after the evidence was closed and while dismissing the freshly filed applications under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. it held that the evidence on record was sufficient to pronounce the judgment and therefore no further evidence was necessary. Against the dismissal of the appeals the High Court in civil revisions Nos. 6 and 7 of 1980 remanded the case to the trial Court holding that the additional evidence was necessary for doing justice in the cases. Having examined the reasons given by the High Court we are of the view that the order is unexceptionable. These are cases where the High Court has exercised its discretion to allow additional evidence to be recorded to advance the cause of justice and merely because respondent No. 1 was for some reason unable to produce the material evidence his right to pre‑empt the land should not be defeated. Accordingly the petitions are dismissed as being without substance. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.