1999 PLP 1655 (YLR)

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding share of inheritance from the land owned by Mst. Rani widow of Data and Mst. Samoo daughter of Dara. The petitioner based his claim on a Will Deed. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants and the learned trial Court after framing the issues recorded the evidence of the parties. After closing the evidence of the respondents/defendants, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence which was opposed by the respondents/ defendants. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 14‑5‑1996 dismissed the application. This order was assailed by way of filing revision petition before the District Judge, Jhang which was entrusted to Mian Abdul Latif, Additional District Judge, who vide order dated 6‑1‑1998 dismissed the same. Hence this Constitutional petition.

2. Both the learned counsel mainly concentrated their arguments on the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that these documents were not relied upon as required under the relevant provisions of C.P.C. and same could not be filed in affirmative evidence as it would amount to filling the lacunas in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the documents in question are the attested copies of public documents and there is no doubt about their authenticity and genuineness and both the Courts below are not justified for not granting 'permission to the petitioner. The perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Additional District Judge while disposing of the revision petition was of the view that these documents could not be filed in affirmative evidence and cannot be accepted in rebuttal. Both the Courts below have totally ignored that the petitioner was seeking production for additional evidence and not evidence in rebuttal. The additional evidence can be allowed at any stage. The Court had ample powers to do the needful so as to advance justice rather than injustice. Concept of bar against filing the gaps was no more available in Pakistani jurisprudence and the law; including, the precedent law on Islamic principles; which were being made applicable progressively to the proceedings before the Courts and other forums which are required to record/admit evidence. In Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah and 9 others (1992 SCMR 1778), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:‑‑ "It is not necessary to admit any additional evidence in this Court. It appears that the trial Court could have collected more evidence but failed to do so. Even if one or the other party had failed to produce all the material documents and/or failed to request for proper examination of the disputed document/signatures, the Court had ample power to do the needful so as to advance justice rather than injustice. The concept of bar against filing the gaps is no more available in the present Pakistan jurisprudence and the law; including, the precedent law on Islamic principles; which are being made applicable progressively to the proceedings before the Courts and other forums which are required to record/admit evidence. See Mian Aziz A. Sheikh v. The Commissioner of Income‑tax PLD 1989 SC 613. "

3. Respectfully following the abovesaid dictum, there is no alternative but to allow this petition. Resultantly the application submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff before, the learned trial Court for adducing additional evidence is allowed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to adduce evidence in rebuttal thereof. The parties shall bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑52/L Petition allowed.