2004 PLP 1682 (MLD)

Muhammad Aslam Pervez had filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 3-7-1995 for the agricultural land measuring 31 Kanals 10 Marlas, situated in Dakhli Mauza Laran, Tehsil Khanpur, which was allegedly executed by defendant No.2, Abdul Waheed in favour of Muhammad Aslam Parvez, plaintiff and on the basis of a general power of attorney allegedly executed by Waheeda Anwar, defendant No.1 in favour of Abdul Waheed, defendant No.2 for the lands of defendant No.1, also. The suit was contested by defendants who denied the execution of the alleged agreement to sell and the alleged general power of attorney having been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Issues were framed and parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. In the documentary evidence, the learned counsel for the defendants on 2-10-2002 produced documents ranging from Exh.D.l to Exh.D.4. The learned Civil Judge after evaluating and apprpciating the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, on 5-10-2002. An appeal filed against that judgment and decree before the learned Additional District Judge, Khanpur was accepted and the suit was dismissed.

2. Aggrieved from that judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

3. With the concurrence of the parties the civil revision is admitted and taken up for final hearing today.

4. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that the petitioner was bound to append all those documents, which were produced in the trial Court. As per learned counsel for the petitioner has knowingly avoided to append all those documents, which were material for the just decision of the case and were corroborative of the version of the defendants-respondents. So, the requirements of section 115 of the C.P.C. Having not been complied with by the petitioner, this civil revision cannot be entertained and maintained on this score alone. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner got an adjournment to reply this objection, but has filed a C.M. No.943 of 2004/BWP during this period, which has also been fixed for today. On the basis of aforesaid C.M. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to grant permission to attach the certified copies of Exh.D.l to Exh.D.4 alongwith the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1991 SCMR 496 (Riasat Ali v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and 2 others) to contend that in the above-referred case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan had granted further time to a party and the C.M. Was entertained. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent has replied that the citation referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and the above referred ruling was delivered when there was no prescribed period of limitation in section 115 of the C.P.C. And the amendment prescribing the limitation of 90 days was not introduced in section 115 of the C.P.C.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the leaned counsels for the parties and gone through the record anxiously.

6. There is no cavil to thp proposition that section 115 of the C.P.C. Has mandated the party filing the civil revision to append all the documents with his civil revision. According to proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C. The person who is to file an application under section 115, C.P.C. Is duty bound to furnish copies of documents and order of the subordinate Court. By filing of the application bearing C.M. No.943 of 2004/BWP, it has been admitted by the petitioner that he had not produced those documents with the civil revision. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner that these were material documents for decision of the case. Undeniably the C.M. Has been moved after a period of 90 days prescribed for filing of the civil revision. The reason enumerated in the aforesaid C.M. Has used the term of {{URDU TEXT}} "inadvertence" only No other reason has been stated in the aforesaid C.M. How this inadvertence has crept in, no explanation is found in the application. It is settled law that Courts do not use their discretion in favour of an indolent/slothful litigant. These documents were very well in the knowledge of the petitioner as the copy of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent producing those documents in evidence with trial Court was already appended to the civil revision. Therefore, the ground of inadvertence cannot possibly be attracted to the facts of the case. The person who is coming to the Court and wants to get a discretionary power of section 115, exercised in his favour from the Court must show his bona fides especially when the period of limitation had already expired in filing of the revision within the period of which, these documents were also to be filed by the petitioner. Due to non-filing a vested valuable right has accrued which can be taken away only on the basis of sufficient cause being shown by the petitioner which is lacking in it. Therefore, the civil revision and the application are dismissed with the no order as to costs. M.A.W./M-354/L Petition dismissed.