1994 PLP 2179 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqashbandi and Sh. Naveed Shaheryar for Petitioner. Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Respondents Nos. 1 to

4. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1994. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 28‑7‑1993, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upholding the order of the trial Court dated 10‑5‑1993, whereby an application for additional evidence was rejected.

2. The dispute in this petition arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, which was instituted by the petitioner against respondents Nos. 1 to

4. During the course of hearing of that suit, the petitioner, after having concluded his evidence, filed an application on 26‑4‑1993 praying that he may be allowed to examine the witnesses, who were earlier not present at Wazirabad when Muhammad Amin was seriously ill. The application was opposed by the respondents. The learned trial Court rejected the same on 21‑5‑1993 finding no justification for allowing the petitioner to produce any additional evidence after having closed it on 7‑3‑1993. It was opined that in the circumstances of the case, it would be amounted to de novo trial of the suit.

3. Aggrieved the petitioner went in revision, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge that if the witnesses were indeed not present at Wazirabad and Muhammad Amin was seriously ill, this fact should have been brought to the notice of the trial Court at the time when the evidence was closed by the petitioner and as he had failed to do so, there was no justification for allowing the petitioner to re‑open the controversy.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others v. Asghar Ali and others (1991 CLC 1470) to contend that the learned trial Court has acted illegally in refusing permission to produce additional evidence.

5. I am afraid this contention is not well‑founded and in any case it is not a fit case for examination in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Both the learned trial Court as also the learned Additional District Judge in exercise of their discretion after examining the facts of the case and duly adverting to the contentions of the parties, have found no justification for production of additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the fact that no medical certificate of Muhammad Amin was produced before the trial Court. It is also not disputed that no request was made by the learned counsel at the time when the evidence was closed that he wanted to examine any further witnesses, who were not available. That being so, the view taken by the Courts below suffers from no jurisdictional error so as to warrant' interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. The precedent case is distinguishable for in that case an order allowing the production of additional evidence which was based upon sound reasons was upheld. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑1701/L Petition dismissed.