2021 PLP 798 (CLC)

ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.

Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above titled constitutional petitions, through which, the petitioners assailed the orders dated 14th February, 2020 and judgment dated 26th June, 2020, respectively passed by the Civil Judge-VII Quetta and the Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, C.P.C., for grant of permission to place certain documents on the record were dismissed.

2. Facts of the instant petitions are that the petitioners/plaintiffs in all the petitions filed suits for declaration, specific performance, injunction and cancellation of instrument against the respondents/ defendants before the court of Civil Judge-VII, Quetta, which were dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. vide judgment and decree dated 28th April, 2014. The petitioners filed appeal before this Court, but failed vide judgment dated 30th September, 2015. Feeling aggrieved, approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing civil petitions for leave to appeal and ultimately the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan remanded the matters to the trial court vide order dated 6th April, 2016 with direction to decide the suits after recording evidence. After remand the trial court framed consolidated issues afresh and directed the parties to lead their evidence. The petitioners/plaintiffs produced seven witnesses and got recorded their statements through attorney. In rebuttal, the respondents/ defendants produced one witness Muhammad Dawood. Meanwhile the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, C.P.C. for placing certain documents on record of the trial court, details whereof are as: i. Copy of proposed plan of commercial plots at old fruit / Vegetable Market Sirki Road, Quetta Southern side; ii. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Sanaullah allottee of Plot No.43-TA(ST) Truck Adda Satellite Town, Quetta; iii. Copies of allotment order made in favour of Mr. Sanaullah by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, chart of payment, agreement, site plan and completion certificate; iv. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Sado Khan of plot No. 91-TA(ST), Truck Adda Satellite Town, Quetta; v. Copies of allotment order made in favour of Sado Khan by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, agreement, no objection certificate and site plan; vi. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Jamal Khan, allottee of Plot No.94-TA (ST) Truck Adda, Satellite Town, Quetta. vii. Copies of allotment order made in favour of Mr. Jamal Khan by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, agreement and site plan; viii. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Abdul Razzaq, allottee of Plot No.68-TA(ST) Truck Adda, Satellite Town, Quetta. ix. Copies of allotment order made in favour of Mr. Abdul Razzaq by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, agreement and site plan, NOC; x. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Abdul Razzaq, allottee of Plot No.69-TA(ST) Truck Adda, Satellite Town, Quetta. xi. Copies of allotment order made in favour of Mr. Jamal Khan by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, agreement and site plan; xii. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan, allottee of plot No. 36-TA (ST) Truck Adda, Satellite Town, Quetta. xiii. Copies of allotment order made in favour of Mr. Jamal Khan by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, agreement, no objection certificate and site plan; xiv. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan, allottee of Plot No. 36-TA (ST) Truck Adda, Satellite Town, Quetta. xv. Copies of allotment order made in favour of Mr. Jamal Khan by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, agreement, no objection certificate and site plan; xvi. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Ali Khan, allottee of Plot No. 53-TA (ST) Truck Adda, Satellite Town, Quetta. xvii Copies of allotment order made in favour of Mr. Ali Khan by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, agreement, no objection certificate, completion certificate and site plan; xviii. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Abdul Wahab, allottee of Plot No.102-TA (ST) Truck Adda, Satellite Town, Quetta. xix. Copies of allotment order made in favour of Mr. Abdul Wahab by the QDA dated 03.11.2010, building permit and site plan; xx. Copies of receipts issued by National Bank of Pakistan Satellite Town Branch in favour of Mr. Abdul Khaliq, allottee of Plot No.15-TA (ST) Truck Adda, Satellite Town, Quetta. xxi. Copies of offer letter dated 25.10.2010 made in favour of Mr. Abdul Khaliq by the QDA dated 25.10.2010 and order dated 15.11.2010; xxii. Copy of order dated 26.3.2018 passed by High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in C.P. No. 755/2013;

3. The respondents/ defendants contested the application by filing rejoinder. After hearing arguments on the application, the trial court dismissed the same, vide consolidated impugned order dated 14th February, 2020. The petitioners/plaintiffs assailed the impugned order through revision petition before the court of the Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta, who vide order dated 26th June, 2020, dismissed the revision petition; hence the petitioners are before this court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., the court has power to allow any party to place relevant document on record at belated stage. According to him non filing of the documents along with the plaints does not debar the plaintiff to produce the documents subsequently upon showing good cause. The documents are official and in possession of the official respondents, therefore, at the time of filing of the suits, they were not in possession of the documents. He stated that upon getting these documents, the petitioners immediately filed the application for permission to place them on the record, as they are very relevant for just decision of the case, therefore, the production of documents is essential. The learned counsel placed reliance on Muhammad Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhary v. Mumtaz Ahmed Tarar 2016 SCMR 1 and 2018 CLC 1334.

5. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 strongly opposed the contention of the petitioners and stated that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to have had produced the documents at first hearing, along with their plaint, but without any reason, they have failed to do so. He added that even otherwise, the documents have no relevancy with the subject matter, therefore, the courts below have rightly dismissed the applications.

6. Heard and perused the record. The record transpires that the petitioners filed suits in the year 2013, but the documents were not annexed. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 16th April, 2016 remanded the case to the trial court with permission to produce evidence. The petitioners/plaintiffs competed their evidence, whereafter, the respondents/ defendants produced two witnesses. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the application after more than three years of remand of the cases. Under Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. the parties shall produce the documents on first hearing of the suit on which they intended to rely. It would be appropriate to reproduce Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.: "Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Documentary evidence to be produced at first hearing-(1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced. Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs."

7. The petitioners intended to produce the documents which were neither appended with the plaint nor were relied upon by the plaintiffs. The petitioners filed list of their witnesses, but did not mention the referred to documents therein. The petitioners have filed the application when the evidence of the parties has almost been completed, but it is simply stated that the documents were not in their possession. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sher Baz Khan v. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana, PLD 2003 SC 849, has held as under: "

24. Learned counsel for the appellants when questioned did not give satisfactory explanation as to what were the reasons for non-production of these documents at the proper stage if the same were so material from appellants' point of view, for according to law, an unsuccessful party in a suit is not to be granted opportunity to fill up weaker parts of its case by producing additional evidence to the prejudice of the other party. He also had no satisfactory answer as to why these documents were not even relied under Order VIII read with Order VII, Rule 14, C.P.C as every party in a suit is enquired to mention the documentary evidence which it would like to produce in evidence in support of its case so that the adverse party had sufficient notice to meet the same."

8. The provisions of Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. dictates that all the documents relied upon, should be produced at the time of first hearing along with the plaint. The object is to prevent the possibility of producing suspicious or forged documents by the parties at later stage of proceedings. The parties are required to produce their documents at the earlier stage so that the opposite parties should know what documents are being relied upon. The contention of the petitioners hat the documents were not in their possession are not based on sound or cogent reasons, therefore, the courts below did not exercise their discretion to permit the petitioners to produce the documents. Reference is made to the cases of Allah Bakhsh v. Fathe Bibi 1994 SCMR 1945 and Muhammad Umar Mirza v. Waris Iqbal 1990 SCMR 964, wherein it was held as under: "

2. Under Rule 2 of Order XIII, Civil Procedure Code, no documentary evidence in possession or power of a party which should have been but has not been produced at the first hearing of a suit can be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof. "

9. The record reveals that the alleged documents have no relevancy or concern with the subject matter. The documents relate to the allotment orders, Bank challan of some other properties and persons, which are not relate to the cases of the petitioners. Even, if the petitioners are permitted to produce the documents, it would have no effect upon the outcome of the case. The petitioners have failed to give satisfactory explanation with regard to non production of the documents at the first date of hearing. They had to satisfy the courts below to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners did not give reference of these documents in their plaints nor any of the witness and the attorney stated anything about these documents.

10. The courts below have concurrently refused to exercise their discretion in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders of the courts below warranting interference by this court, while exercising extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The impugned orders of the courts below are well reasoned and according to law, therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts. In view of the above the Constitutional Petitions Nos. 615 of 2020 to 652 of 2020 being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited by each of the petitioners, in the account of the Quetta Development Authority. MH/207/Bal Petitions dismissed.