2007 PLP 192 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.

This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.10603/2006, 10604/2006 and 10605 of 2006 as common question of law and facts is involved in all the three writ petitions.

2. Facts giving rise to the instant writ petitions are to the effect that the present petitioner Imran Shafique plaintiff/petitioner herein had instituted three civil suits against Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmad, Haji Manzoor Ahmad, and Haji Maqsood Ahmad defendant/respondent No.

1. The suits were contested by defendants/respondents who filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint with the prayer of dismissal of the suits. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court on 30-6-2003 framed the various issues. The plaintiff was directed to produce his evidence. During the trial of the suits the plaintiff/petitioner has filed separate applications in three suits under Order XIII, Rules, 1 and 2 C.P.C. for production of the registered envelope sent to the respondents/defendant, in the Court. The applications of the petitioner were contested by every defendant and the learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties dismissed the same vide order, dated 16-5-2006. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff/petitioner preferred a revision petition, which came up for hearing before the learned Addl. District Judge, Sialkot, who vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 20-9-2006 dismissed the revision petitions of the plaintiff/petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently questioned the validity of the impugned orders contending that the registered envelope was a `public' document. At the time of filing of the suit it was not in possession of the petitioner, therefore, he has applied to the Court for production of the same in evidence.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. The civil suits have been field by the petitioner/plaintiff on 26-3-2003; written statements were filed by the defendants on 30-6-2003; issues were framed by the Court on the same date and the plaintiff was directed to produce his evidence. The statement of (P.W.1) Shehzad Hussain Branch Postman has been recorded on 25-5-2005. The plaintiff/petitioner has taken very long time for production of his evidence after the settlement of issues. The applications for production of the registered envelope have been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner on 16-5-2006 wherein he has stated that on the day of filing of the suits the registered envelope has not been received to him. He in paragraph No.3 of the applications stated that inadvertently he has not entered/mentioned A this document in his list of reliance. This application too has been filed by the petitioner with the delay of more than two years after institution of the suits, even after settlement of issues.

6. Order Xl1I Rule 2 C.P.C. reads as under:

"No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements or rule 1 shall be recorded at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing." Rule 1 of Order XIII further envisages that:-- "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 the Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced". And if not produced at least this document as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, was not in the possession of the petitioner at the time of institution of the suit but he should have placed reliance of the document or at the receipt of acknowledgement due in his list of reliance. The sub Rule (2) has empowered the Court to receive the same provided `sufficient' reasons for non-production are shown by the party. The learned trial Judge has in an elaborate order, dated 16-5-2006 had come to the conclusion that good cause has not been shown to his satisfaction for non-production of the document and the order has been B upheld by the revisional Court as well and the High Court is always reluctant to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below in its constitutional jurisdiction. The only arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed the application for permission to produce the document on the ground that at the time of institution of the suits, this envelope has not been received hack by him. But the question is when he received back this envelope undelivered, why immediately the application was not filed, no satisfactory explanation was given by the petitioner for the same. The trial Court has c not acted arbitrarily in the circumstances and no principle of law having been violated by the trial Court. The observation of the trial Court has been upheld by the revisional Court and the High Court will also not interfere in the same. Reference in this context can be made to the cases of Muhammad Umar Mirza v. Waris Iqbal and others (1990 SCMR 964), and Rab Nawaz and another v. Muhammad Amir and another (1999 SCMR 951).

7. There is concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner and the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below as laid down in the cases of C Benedict Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and three others (1989 SCMR 918), Federation of Pakistan and 2 others v. Major (Retd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan (PLD 1991 SC 476), and Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary and others (1993 SCMR 618). Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders and miserably failed to persuade the Court to interfere with the same.

8. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions being devoid of force are dismissed in limine. H.B.T./I-60/L Petition dismissed.