2012 PLP 495 (CLC)

MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.

This revision petition has been filed against the order of Additional District Judge, Dadyal Camp Mirpur dated 10-7-2010 through which an application filed by the petitioner to produce additional evidence was dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that petitioner/appellant, Muhammad Sadiq, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Mirpur against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mirpur. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner submitted an application on 12-10-2009 to produce some copies of Revenue Record as additional evidence. Respondents submitted objections and stated that the petitioner failed to append the said documents at the time of filing the suit, even the petitioner did not tender these documents in evidence. No reliable reason has been mentioned to tender these documents at this stage. The respondents prayed to dismiss the said application.

3. Arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that it is just and proper to place the said documents on record for disposal of the controversy between the parties. The relevant documents necessary for disposal of the case can be produced as additional evidence at any stage. The learned Counsel for the petitioner requested to accept the revision petition.

4. While controverting the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sahadat Ali Kiani, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents, contended that petitioner did not submit any application for additional evidence before the basic Court, so, petitioner is not competent to submit an application for additional evidence at later stage. The learned Counsel requested to dismiss the instant revision petition and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments:

(1) 1988 CLC 22, (2) 1988 SCMR 1653 and (3) 2000 CLC 1272

5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the precedents referred minutely. Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. narrates that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in the appellate Court. But if the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or the appellate Court requires any document to be produced to enable it for disposal of the controversy, then the appellate Court may allow such evidence or documents to be produced.

6. In the present case, petitioner/plaintiff filed his suit on 2-4-2001, which was disposed of by the learned Civil Judge, Mirpur on 31-8-2007. During pendency of the suit before the learned Civil Judge, Mirpur, the petitioner did not submit any application to produce the said documents as additional evidence. The said documents were available before filing of the suit and the petitioner/plaintiff could file those documents with his plaint but he did not make any effort to tender these documents. It has been laid down in a case titled "Maqsood Hussain v. Mohammad Hussain (2000 CLC 1272)" that additional evidence can be produced in appeal if the party has applied to the trial Court for production of the additional evidence and the said Court has refused to admit the same or that the appellate Court requires or deems necessary to enable it to pronounce the judgment. In the present case, the petitioner has not applied to the trial Court for production of additional evidence, therefore, he is not entitled to be allowed to produce the same at later stage. Having in view the circumstances discussed above, the learned Additional District Judge, Dadyal Camp Mirpur recorded his findings based on sound and cogent reasons which need no indulgence by this Court. So, the instant revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./9/H.C.AJ&K) Petition dismissed.