1998 PLP 671 (SCMR)

Abdul Sattar Chughtai, Advocate instructed by Mahmoodul Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. l to 3, 7 and

17. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing; 23rd June, 1997. KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the order dated 26‑2‑1997 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby the revision petition against the order dated 6‑12‑1993 of the learned Additional District Judge, Leyyah, rejecting the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with section 151, C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The petitioners had filed an application seeking permission to produce certified copy of the sale‑deeds statedly obtained on 19‑3‑1979 and 14‑4‑1980 from the office of the Sub‑Registrar, Muzaffar Garh, as additional evidence with a view to support their plea taken in the appeal pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Leyyah: The reason for refusing the request was that litigation on the subject‑matter remained pending between the parties firstly before the Revenue Courts from 4‑10‑1974 to 10‑5‑1979 and then same matter was agitated by filing a suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge but no such application was moved by the petitioners for producing said copies of the registered sale‑deeds registered on 15‑12‑1952. Learned Judge in Chambers refused to interfere in exercise of discretionary revisional jurisdiction noting the above‑stated facts and observing that the parties have remained in litigation since long and the sale‑deeds were registered as. back as in 1952 and the petitioners seek to produce this evidence at appeal stage and that they have not alleged that he said documents were not available or traceable during the trial of the suit. Learned Judge, therefore, agreed with the conclusion recorded by the learned Additional District Judge refusing to admit the certified copies of the sale‑deeds as additional evidence.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The main plea urged was that the certified copies sought to be produced were necessary for determining the real question in. controversy between the parties and as such the learned Courts below erred in law in refusing permission to produce them. He added that these certified copies would have established that the sale‑deeds in question were entered at Serial No.1765 in the Petition Writer's Register and thus would have belied the stand of the respondents/plaintiffs that the sale‑deed in their favour had been entered in the said register at Serial No. 1760. Learned counsel cited three judgments of the High Court reported in 1988 Monthly Law Digest wherein application for production of additional evidence was allowed as the said document was considered necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, but the same need not be cited as the principle referred to in these judgments does not apply to the instant case.

3. The certified copies allegedly obtained on 19‑3‑1979 and 14‑4‑1980 were statedly found lying in the documents during the pendency of the appeal. It is pertinent to note that the said copy was not produced immediately after its receipt from the office of the Sub‑Registrar though at that time the proceedings were pending before the Revenue Courts. The fact that the sale deed in favour of Abdul Qayyum etc./plaintiffs was entered at Serial No.1760 stood almost admitted in the proceedings before the Revenue Courts which remained pending from 4‑10‑1974 to 10‑5-1979. Even in the suit, Noor Din, one of the defendants (petitioner No.2) produced certified copy of the sale‑deed in question, copy of which was obtained in the year 1974, showing the Serial No. 1760 of the Petition Writer's Register. He (Noor Din) in his statement recorded as D.W.1 stated in his cross‑examination that in the certified copy of the sale‑deed obtained on 18‑7‑1974 produced before the Revenue Officer, serial number of Petition Writer's Register entered is 1760 and that on account of the said entry, decision was rendered against them. Copies of the sale‑deeds dated 18‑7‑1974 and 19‑3‑1979 have been placed on record in the Paper Book (Part‑II).

4. In view of the statement of Noor Din petitioner No.2 as D.W.1, in the suit and the material already available on record, learned Courts below were justified in refusing to allow production of the said documents at the appellate stage, specially when no reasonable ground for not producing the same during the trial of the suit was shown: Parties were conscious of the question involved in the suit and they did produce the evidence. In the circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with the Courts below that justification for production of the certified copies in question as additional evidence was not made out. The discretion so exercised, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

5. There is no merit in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./I‑42/S Leave refused.