1994 PLP 1945 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑OXIII, R. 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Non -production of document in question at earliest stage of proceedings on which defendant had not relied‑‑‑Order of Trial Court rejecting defendant's prayer to receive document in question, at belated stage of trial was affirmed in appeal and revision, being in accordance with provisions of O.XIII, R. 2, C.P.C., could not be termed as illegal‑‑‑Concurrent finding of Courts below on question of fact, did not call for interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th July, 1993. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to a house situate in Basti Qulwali, Chak Noor Shah. It was purchased by a registered deed dated 12‑8‑1981 by the respondent from the three sons of one Allah Ditta. It was in the possession of the petitioner. On 22‑12‑1981 the respondent filed a suit for possession of the house. She stated that the petitioner was living in it as a licensee on account of his relationship with the vendors for his sister was married to one of them. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. He alleged that the land underlying the house was purchased by the father of the vendors but the funds for the same were provided by his own grandfather. As such the father of the vendors was merely a Benamidar. He also alleged that the house was initially constructed by his own grandfather and that he had later re‑built it in 1950.

2. The suit was decreed by the trial Court which rejected the plea of the petitioner that he was m possession of the house as owner in his own right. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge and the revision petition before the High Court remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner before us is that the trial Court has illegally rejected his prayer for receiving in evidence a document executed by the father of the vendors wherein he had admitted that he was holding the land merely as a Benamidar on behalf of the grandfather of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had neither relied upon this document nor produced it at the earliest stage of the proceedings. In the circumstances, the order of the trial Court rejecting his prayer to, receive the document in evidence at a belated stage was just m accordance with the provisions of Rule 2, Order XIII, Civil Procedure Code. It should, therefore, hardly be described as illegal.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondent was the rightful owner of the house on the basis of the sale made in her favour by the sons of Allah Ditta suffers from any illegality. Leave is refused. AA./A‑1117/S Leave refused.