1992 PLP 1219 (MLD)
SIKANDAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus QAMAR DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1219 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | SIKANDAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus QAMAR DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1219 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1219 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1219 (MLD) (SIKANDAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus QAMAR DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXIII, R.2‑‑‑Additional evidence, production of‑‑‑Ground for production of additional evidence that certain documents were not produced inadvertently being a vague assertion could not be treated as a sound reason for receiving additional evidence. In the present case it was contended that the petitioners were not aware of the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence and, therefore, they were not placed before the trial Court at the stage of evidence. These arguments, however, stood belied by the application made by the petitioners inasmuch as it had not been stated therein that they had no knowledge of the documents in question before the evidence of the parties had concluded. It had been stated in the application that the documents were not produced inadvertently. This was a vague assertion and could not be treated as a sound reason for receiving additional evidence. After the closure of evidence by the parties, no party could be allowed to improve upon his case by producing additional evidence unless there were cogent reasons justifying the receipt of additional evidence. Mere assertion that certain evidence was not produced inadvertently when the case was at the stage of evidence would not justify production of such evidence as additional evidence. Further, it was discretionary with the Courts to grant or withhold permission for adducing additional evidence, and where the Court did not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity in disallowing the petitioner's prayer in this regard, High Court declined to interfere.
Judgment & Decree
This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioners, Sikandar and others, against the respondents, Qamar Din and others. After framing of issues the parties produced evidence. The entire evidence was recorded by 26th March, 1990. Thereafter, on 23rd February, 1991, the petitioners made an application for permission to produce certain documents by way of additional evidence. Learned Civil Judge who was seized of the suit did not allow their application. His order in this regard was challenged by the petitioners by filing appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. Hence this civil revision.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence and, therefore, they were not placed before the learned trial Court at the stage of evidence. His arguments, however, stand belied by the application made by the petitioners inasmuch as it has not been stated therein that they had no knowledge of the documents in question before the evidence of the parties had concluded. It has been stated in the application that the above documents were not produced inadvertently. This is a vague assertion and cannot be treated as a sound reason for receiving additional evidence.
3. It is a cardinal principle of law that after the closure of evidence by the parties, no party can be allowed to improve upon his case by producing additional evidence unless there are cogent reasons justifying the receipt of additional evidence. Mere assertion that certain evidence was not produced inadvertently when the case was at the stage of evidence does not justify production of such evidence as additional evidence. Further, it was discretionary with the two Courts below to grant or withhold permission for adducing additional evidence, and they do not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity in disallowing the petitioner's prayer in this regard. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with their orders under challenge.
4. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. M.BA./S‑84/L Petition dismissed.