P L D 2013 High Court (AJ&K) 6 (PLP)

MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.

This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge Bhimber dated 14-2-2012, through which an application for additional evidence filed by the petitioners, Imtiaz Ali and others, was rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption regarding the disputed land measuring 18 kanals bearing survey Nos. 1679/398 and 399 situated at village Manana Tehsil Samahni against the present petitioners and pro forma respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Samahni. Written statement was submitted, issues were framed and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge Bhimber. During pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge Bhimber, the petitioners submitted an application for additional evidence stating therein that the respondent/plaintiff sold his land measuring 11 kanals 18 marlas and 4 sarsai through 2 sale-deeds on 26-2-2011 only to manage payment of the decretal amount in the said pre-emption suit. It shows that the respondent/plaintiff had no money to make payment of the same and he sold his ancestral land which was nearer than the disputed land. It also shows that respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for pre-emption only on personal hostility. The petitioners further stated that they want to place attested copies of the said sale-deeds along with copies of Aks-e-Masawi and Khasragardawari as additional evidence. The respondent/plaintiff submitted objections stating therein that there was no bar on the respondent/ plaintiff to sell his land. The application for additional evidence has been filed only to prolong the controversy between the parties. The respondent/plaintiff prayed to dismiss the said application. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge Bhimber dismissed the application for additional evidence filed by the present petitioners, hence, the instant revision petition.

3. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties who only repeated the versions as taken by them through pleadings. No need is required to produce these arguments in black and white.

4. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record and the relevant law minutely. Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. contemplates as under:-- "Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C.:-- Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court:

(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if_____ (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court the Court shall record the reason for its admission." The above mentioned provision of law clarifies that the application for additional evidence does not fulfil the requirements indicated in the said provision. The said sale-deeds have been executed by the respondent/plaintiff after the issuance of decree in pre-emption suit in his favour by the trial Court. There is no bar by the provisions relating to pre-emption to deposit the decretal amount by selling another property by the decree holder. The placing of copies of the said sale-deeds shall serve no purpose to enable a Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Having in view the circumstances discussed above, the findings recorded by the learned District Judge Bhimber are based on sound and cogent reasoning which need no indulgence by this Court. The instant revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. SAK/16/AJK(HC) Petition dismissed.