2001 PLP 1256 (CLC)

Suit of plaintiff Mst. Nasreen Bibi for declaration that suit plot measuring 427‑2" which is part of House No.C/2845‑A, Bakhri Bazar, D.I. Khan is her ownership and in her possession and that the defendant has no concern with its ownership was decreed by the judgment and decree, dated 6‑12‑1994 of the Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan. The legal heirs of defendant Ghulam Rasool challenged the said findings of the trial Court by way of appeal. Alongwith appeal an application was also submitted for permission to adduce additional evidence by bringing on record the plan prepared by one M.A, Raqib, R.I., dated 7‑11‑1963 and copy of order of the Settlement Commissioner in Appeal No.37/D of 1964 decided on 22‑1‑1965. The learned Additional District Judge, who was seized of the appeal, did not allow additional evidence and on the strength of the material available on record, upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissed the appeal by his judgment and decree, dated 20‑11‑1996.

2. Aggrieved by the findings of the two Courts below, the legal heirs of defendant Ghulam Rasool have invoked jurisdiction of this Court through the instant civil revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Alongwith the civil revision petition an application (Civil Miscellaneous 102 of 1996) was also filed praying for permission to produce additional evidence.

3. The only point urged in this Court on behalf of the petitioner was rejection of their prayers for producing the additional evidence. Through the said additional evidence, the petitioners intend to bring on record map of the Property No.C/2987‑A and copy of order, dated 22‑1‑1965 of the Settlement Commissioner, D.I. Khan, wherein allegedly Property No.C/2987‑A and Property No.C/5023 had been held to be one and the same unit. During the protracted litigation at no stage the defendants referred to the said map of the orders of the Settlement Commissioner. Neither in their written statement nor in the statement at the trial any such reference was made to the said documents. No doubt, photo copies of the said documents are placed on record of the trial Court but neither this has been exhibited nor any evidence recorded with reference to the said documents. Under Order 41, Rule 27 parties to appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in the appellate Court. It may be mentioned here that Ghulam Rasool, plaintiff had many rounds of litigation over the suit property, i.e. with the Municipal Committee and one Haji Muhammad Hayat prior to the instant litigation but he nowhere referred to the documents now applied for to be brought on record. Although by filing photo copies, referred to above, it can safely be presumed that he did have knowledge of the said documents which could have been produced and exhibited at appropriate stage. Additional evidence at appellate stage can be allowed only if it is deemed essential for pronouncing the judgment if otherwise the material brought forth does not enable the appellate Court to come to a definite conclusion. Additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill in the lacunae of either party. In the circumstances the learned Additional District Judge rightly rejected the prayer for recording additional evidence and I see no substance to disagree with the findings of the Appellate Court on that score.

4. It is well‑settled that concurrent findings of the two Courts below are not to be lightly interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless the same are the result of jurisdictional error or some material irregularity. The learned counsel for the petitioner except for stressing for permission to adduce additional evidence, did not stress any other point to annul the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Finding no substance in this civil revision petition, it is accordingly, dismissed. Leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./259/P Petition dismissed.