2020 PLP 1870 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.

Through instant petition, petitioners have assailed order dated 22.08.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby revision petition filed by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 9(I) to 9(V) against order dated 13.02.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore, was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the document sought to be produced by respondents i.e. power of Attorney No.3812 cannot be allowed to be produced in evidence as it is neither mentioned anywhere in written statement submitted by respondents nor any list of reliance was produced with written statement. He adds that impugned findings of learned Additional District Judge, being contrary to record, are not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon Mst. Murad Begum and others v. Muhammad Rafiq and others (PLD 1974 Supreme Court 322), Mst. Roshan Akhtar v. Muhammad Boota and 4 others (2000 SCMR 1845), Combined Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Wali Bhai and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 730), Muhammad Aslam v. Abdul Wahid and 3 others (2001 CLC 155), Mst. Rashida Begum v. Muhammad Ameen and 4 others (2001 MLD 725), Piran Ditta and 12 others v. Mst. Kundan and 10 others (2006 CLC 1763), Rahim-ul-Wahab and 3 others v. Haji Mir Ghalib Khan (2016 YLR 11), Mst. Riffat Sultana and others v. Nadir Hayat and others (2016 YLR 110), Isfiaan Haider v. Muhammad Hussain and 2 others (2017 CLC 352) and Muhammad Yaqub Brohi v. Ministry of Housing and Works through Secretary and 2 others (2017 CLC 369).

3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 defends the impugned appellate order and submits that petitioners have failed to pinpoint any illegality or legal perversity therein, thus, same is liable to be upheld. In support of his contentions, he referred to Rab Nawaz v. Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others (1994 CLC 64), Messrs Al Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Limited v. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority (2003 CLD 1497), Messrs Javed Nazir Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Al-Barak Islamic Bank and others (2008 CLC 722), Shaukat Usman v. United Bank Limited through President and 6 others (2011 CLC 1407), Moazam Majeed Bajwa v. Tariq Munawar and others (2012 MLD 417), Kohinoor Tobacco Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. S.M. Idrees Allawala (2013 CLC 1789), Haji Abdul Razzak through L.Rs. and others v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others (2016 YLR 2197), Khalid Mehmood v. Rana Muhammad Iqbal (2017 CLC Note 180) and Malik Riazullah v. Mst. Dilnasheen and others (2018 CLC 1569).

4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.

5. This controversy is arising upon production of power of Attorney No.3812 by respondents in evidence. Needless to say that evidence should not be shut out to exclude documents generally, except where they are apparently suspicious, forged or fabricated, so as to prevent fraud. The objection raised by a party cannot be taken in order to penalize the other side for not producing document in time, rather it may be given an opportunity to produce evidence, which, for some good cause, could not be produced in time. If the Court is satisfied that the document is relevant and necessary for just decision of the case, it can be allowed at any stage. Learned Revisional Court rightly proceeded to allow the revision petition by observing that document in question might affect the lis either way and that there is a good cause shown in the application. The relevant portion of revisional order dated 22.08.2017 is reproduced hereunder:- "

6. Truly, as the revision petitioner himself has admitted that the fact of inadvertent mention of wrong number of sale deed as 3772 instead of 3812 in the concerned registered sale deed could not be pointed out earlier under the impression that it is a general power of attorney with correct number as this fact was pointed out at this stage. So far as perusal of said document i.e. General Power of Attorney with registered No.3812 is concerned, it is very much evident that the same was registered in favour of Muhammad Javed Babar and this name is very much mentioned there in the written statement of revision. petitioner / defendant as is enunciated vide Para No.4 of the same and the very description of general power of attorney i.e; volume No.404 pages 77 to 83 dated 12.10.1974 duly registered on 14.10.1974 also mentioned in the plaint itself however with difference of document No.3772 instead of 3812. Meaning there by that this document is not an alien document.

7. So far as respondents contentions that the said general power of attorney is not a public document as execution of it is disputed one and thus this document is hit by Article 85(5) of Qanoon-e-Shandat Order, 1984. Then it is very much evident that the document in question at this stage is 3772 which indeed is a public document and it must at least be permitted to be produced in evidence. Though it would be another question to be adjudged by the learned trial court whether it is admissible in evidence or not. After the above referred discussed facts, it conclude that proposition in hand having sufficient and good cause to accept the version of revision petitioner. Moreover it is a material document to decide the lis either way, coupled with the fact that it is a 30 years old document. Thus relying upon case laws "2014 SCJ 200" and "2012 MLD 417" by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2016, the instant revision petition is hereby accepted."

6. So far as petitioners' objection that said document was not mentioned in written statement, suffice it to say that said document was registered in favour of Muhammad Javed Babar, whose name is mentioned in para No.4 of the written statement. Petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order. The case law, referred to by petitioners, is quite distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. Resultantly, instant petition, being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ZC/A-39/L Petition dismissed.