1988 PLP 603 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu for Petitioner. Aftab Iqbal Chaudhary for Respondents. The petitioners have moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the orders dated 26‑3‑1987 and 9‑5‑1987 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, respondent No.2, as well as the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, respondent No.l, respectively, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. On 26‑5‑1987, pre‑admission notices were sent to the respondents and in obedience to the order of the Court, the said respondents are present and are represented through their learned counsel.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the contesting respondents purchased a piece of land measuring 92 Kanals and 4 Marlas through a registered sale deed for a sum of rupees nine lacs on 1‑3‑1983. The sale in question was pre‑empted by the writ- petitioners by filing a suit for pre‑emption on 28‑2‑1984 on the ground's that the respondents were not owners in the estate and that the petitioners‑plaintiffs had superior right of pre‑emption and this qualification is not possessed by the contesting respondents. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing the written statement and as many as 15 issues were framed arising out of the pleadings of the parties. However, the writ‑petitioners submitted an application on 3‑3‑1987 vide Annexure 'C' praying for the production of additional evidence. Actually the petitioners wanted to produce a copy of the plaint filed against respondent No.3 and father of respondent No.4 to 7, his written statement and the order of the learned Civil Court dated 1‑12‑1984 etc. The respondents submitted the reply to the aforesaid application on 15‑3‑1987 opposing the grant of relief to the writ‑petitioners. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the aforesaid application vide his order dated 26‑3‑1987 (Annexure 'B'). The petitioners went in revision before the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same on 9‑5‑1987 vide Annexure 'G'.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was ample justification for the learned trial Court to have allowed permission to the petitioners to lead additional evidence in the case to meet the ends of justice. Learned counsel stated that the requirement of law was that at any stage of the suit, the petitioners were at liberty to move a petition for the production of additional evidence. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that there was no justification to allow amendment as prayed for by the petitioners in the suit. He submitted that on the same subject the petitioners earlier filed an application for the production of additional evidence which application was rejected by the learned trial Court on 17‑7‑1986. The learned counsel stressed that the above referred order passed by the learned trial Court was challenged in revision which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat vide his order dated 1‑2‑1987. Learned counsel urged that this fact has not been disclosed by the writ‑petitioners in the body of the petition and as such, the petitioners have not come with clean hands in the High Court. The learned counsel stated that the writ petition against this interim order is not warranted in law. He further stated that the order dated 26‑3‑1987 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, is well reasoned order.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record very minutely. In my considered view, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not been able to point out any jurisdictional defects or any legal infirmity in the two impugned orders having been passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge as well as the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat. The learned trial Court observed that the documents required to be produced have no relevance whatsoever upon the issues already framed in the case and further no cogent reasons have been advanced in that behalf by the petitioners‑plaintiffs. It was further observed by the learned trial Court that the acceptance of the application shall amount to reopening the case which is not appreciated by the law applicable thereto. This finding was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, vide his order, dated 9‑5‑1987. It was held by the learned Revisional Court that the application for the production of additional evidence already stood dismissed by the learned trial Court in the earlier round of litigation. Thus, the learned Revisional Court came to the conclusion that there was no lawful justification for interference. I have considered the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The impugned orders are well‑based in law. It may be observed here that the petitioners moved an identical application for .the production of additional evidence which was earlier dismissed by the learned trial Court and the revision of the writ‑petitioners was also dismissed. The writ‑petitioners cannot be permitted to move various applications on the same subject again and again to obtain the desired relief. Additionally, it has been brought to my notice that this fact that earlier application for production of additional evidence moved by the petitioners was rejected by the learned trial Court and their revision was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, has not been mentioned in the body of the writ petition. Thus, this fact alone will disentitle the petitioners to the grant of discretionary relief under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. I am clear in my mind that the impugned orders have been passed within the jurisdiction and with lawful authority by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties) to bear their own costs. S.Q. /I‑39/L Petition dismissed