1991 PLP 1628 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1991. This writ petition is directed against the order of Civil Judge, Ferozewala and District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 26‑1‑1989 and 3‑5‑1990 respectively.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration on 12‑7‑1974. The issues were framed on 5‑7‑1977. The petitioner closed his affirmative evidence on 25‑4‑1982. The defendant closed her side on 6‑10‑1985 while the petitioner concluded his evidence in rebuttal on 28‑6‑1986. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for production of additional evidence. The same was allowed. The petitioner produced documents Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 on 21‑10‑1986. Therafter the suit was posted for final arguments more than half a dozen times. It was on 10‑1‑1989 when the petitioner submitted yet another application under Order XVIII, Rule 2 read with Order XIII, Rule 2 and Section 151, C.P.C. for production ‑of additional evidence. The same was dismissed by the learned trial Court‑respondent No.3 vide order dated 26‑1‑1989. The petitioner filed a revision petition, which was dismissed by respondent No.2. These orders have now been challenged through this writ petition. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No.l alone has appeared and contested the petition while the other respondents were proceeded ex parte.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the delay per se is not fatal for production of documents, which are authentic and copies of public record. It is added that the revision is a right of a party and the petitioner has been condemned unheard as much as counsel was not allowed to argue the revision. The learned counsel in support of the propositions canvassed by him has referred to large number of precedents.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.l argued that the provisions of Order XVIII were not attracted as it only relates to summoning of a witness and petitioner failed to make out a case under Order XIII because he has to show a good cause and the learned trial Court has to record reasons for allowing such petition. It is added that it was not a `case decided', therefore, the revision was not competent and this renders the present petition also incompetent. It is added that writ petition is otherwise not competent against the interim orders because law does not favour piecemeal and fragment adjudication. The learned counsel, in this behalf, has referred to cases of A.F. Ferguson & Co. v. The Sindh Labour Court and another (P L D 1985 SC 429) and Pakistan Burmah‑Shell Ltd. v. Mrs. Nasreen Irshad and others (1989 S C M R 1892).

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to large number of judgments of superior Courts but the same are not relevant because none of the cases were of Constitutional jurisdiction.

6. Now coming to the other relevant facts. The petitioner produced his additional evidence on 21‑10‑1986. It seems that, in the meanwhile, he has also moved an application for framing of additional issues, which was allowed vide order dated 21‑10‑1986 and following issues were framed:‑ "(1) Whether the defendant filed any suit for partition regarding the suit land in the revenue Court? If so, its effect? OPP. (2) Whether defendant filed any civil suit in the civil Court at Ferozewala. If so, its effect? OPP." The respondent No.l impugned this order through a revision petition which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 14‑11‑1986. It is thereafter that the case was fixed for final arguments when the petitioner moved the second application for production of additional documents out of which present petition has arisen. The documents were placed on record on 20‑4‑1987 after the framing of additional issues. The perusal of the documents shows that the same covered the additional issues, therefore, the moment the additional issues were deleted by the revisional Court there was no justification to seek permission for production of these documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to refer to any portion of the plaint, which is sought to be proved through these documents.

7. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 have exercised the jurisdiction vested in them. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. There is a merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that the petition was misconceived and the A petitioner failed to make out a case to attract provisions of Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The petition does not disclose why these documents were not produced earlier. The suit was instituted in 1974 and petitioner concluded his evidence in rebuttal on 28‑6‑1986 and thereafter he was allowed to produce documents Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 in additional evidence. The law does not help the indolent and negligent litigants. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction.

8. The result is that writ petition is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./A‑1195/L Petition dismissed.