1992 PLP 1631 (MLD)

Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner, This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondents, Farooq Ahmad Hashmi and others against the petitioner, Rehmat Ali. Property involved in the suit was a plot .of land. The suit was decreed by a Civil Judge. The petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. Hence this civil revision.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the case was at the stage of appeal, the petitioner made an application for permission to produce additional evidence but the learned Additional District Judge decided the appeal without disposing of the said application.

3. Before proceeding further, I will like to decide the said application myself instead of remanding the case to the learned Appellate Court for the purpose.

4. Law is well settled on the point that after the closure of evidence by the parties, a party is not to be allowed to improve upon his case by producing additional evidence unless there are cogent reasons for permitting him to do so. In the application made by the petitioner no reason has been given for not adducing that evidence before the learned trial Court which wag sought to be produced before the learned Appellate Court as additional evidence. It was, therefore, not a fit case for permitting the petitioner to produce additional evidence.

5. It is also noteworthy that if the petitioner was serious in pursuing the said application he should have invited the attention of the learned Appellate Court thereto, when arguments were addressed before that Court or at any later stage but before the appeal was decided. No such step was; however, taken by him. This shows that the petitioner was not keen to produce additional evidence.

6. Another point canvassed by the learned counsel was that issue No.7 was not decided by the learned Civil Judge. His plea in this behalf stands belied by the record because in his judgment the learned Civil Judge did discuss the said issue and recorded finding against the petitioner. . Question involved in the suit was whether the plot in dispute belonged to the petitioner or to the respondents. It was a question of fact on which there is concurrent finding of the two Courts below, and it is against the petitioner. No misreading or non‑reading of evidence or any other defect justifying interference with their finding has been pointed out by the learned counsel. The respondents' case also derives support by the evidence of one of the petitioner's witnesses, namely, Abdul Waris, who appeared as D.W.1. In the circumstances, these is no reason to interfere with the unanimous verdict of the learned lower Courts.

8. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. M.BA./R‑36/L Petition dismissed