2017 PLP 180 (CLCN)

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

This civil revision is directed against the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal, whereby the application under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. filed by the respondent, was allowed and the respondent was permitted to submit the departmental record/documents during the course of recording the evidence.

2. The respondent/defendant, during the proceedings, filed an application under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. to file the documents pertaining to the record of the department, which was contested and finally the learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties, allowed the application against which, this civil revision has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the order passed by the learned trial Court is violative of Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., wherein it is mentioned, that the documents mentioned in the list of documents can only be produced during the course of recording evidence, therefore, the order is not sustainable in law. Next contended, that the documents, sought to be produced by the respondent, were very much in the possession of the respondent-department, therefore, the respondent intentionally filed this application simply to linger on the matter. Reliance is placed on Rab Nawaz and 8 others v. Muhammad Amir and another (1999 SCMR 951), American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc. and 2 others v. Muhammad Nasrullah Beg, Baig & Co. (2001 YLR 1185), Sher Baz Khan and others v. Mst. Malkani Sahibzad Tiwana and others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 849), Muhammad Yousaf v. Mst. Maqsooda Anjum and others (2004 SCMR 1049), Allah Dad and 3 others v. Dhuman Khan and 10 others (2005 SCMR 564), Mst. Sadia Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Board of Revenue through Secretary (RS & EP) and 7 others (2008 CLC 34) and Muhammad Mussa and 3 others v. Hamid Ali (2012 CLC 254).

4. Conversely, the learned Assistant Advocate-General opposed the contention raised by the petitioner.

5. The record, particularly, the application under Order XIII(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. filed by the respondent, was perused, to deal with the matter in the light of the aforesaid provision of law. Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. permits any party of the suit to submit the documentary evidence not mentioned in the list of documents at the time of filing the suit, subject to the condition ofshowing good cause by the parties. The simple or another interpretation of the good cause could be that in the absence of the documentary evidence sought to be produced under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. at the later stage, no effective decree could be passed. In this case, the petitioner has filed the suit for damages to the tune of Rs.100,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) against the respondent/defendant who is Director Land Reclamation, Irrigation Department. In this case, the contents of the plaint reveal, that the petitioner/plaintiff has claimed the damages by referring the documents pertaining to the department of the respondent/defendant, therefore, if those documents referred in the plaint or mentioned in the evidence are not brought on the judicial file, it would not be possible for the learned trial Court to pass an effective and executable decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the aforesaid esteemed judgments but the facts of this case are entirely different. Anyhow, in the afore-referred esteemed judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, it has been ruled that the person who is seeking the permission from the Court to bring on record certain documents at the later stage, will have to show the good cause, therefore, in other words, till the final adjudication of the case, the documents may be brought on record at any stage if not earlier filed subject to showing good cause and the good cause is to be decided by the Court obviously by giving reasons. The primary duty of the Courts is to decide the lis fairly, justly and in accordance with the law applicable on the case and if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice, the Court may grant the permission at any stage of the case.

6. In this case, the respondent/defendant has explained the sufficient cause and even otherwise, while having a glance over the record, it can easily be observed, that only the documents pertaining to the respondent-department sought to be brought on record to meet the ends of justice. Further, at the trial stage and particularly when the evidence is yet to be completed, the parties to the suit should be given maximum opportunity to place on record the material pertaining to the case, so that the learned trial Court could appreciate the same before passing the final decree. It would not be out of place to mention here, that if at the trial stage, parties to the case are permitted to place on record the necessary documents after showing the good cause, if not annexed or mentioned in the list of documents at the trial stage, in appeal stage, it would also help the appellate Court to decide the case fairly and justly.

7. The learned trial Court, after careful appreciation of the record, has rightly reached to the conclusion, that the respondent/defendant should be given an opportunity to produce the documents which pertain to the record of the department, therefore, no illegality or jurisdictional defect has been committed by the learned trial Court while accepting the application.

8. Resultantly, this civil revision is dismissed, the respondent/ defendant are permitted to produce the documents only pertaining to the record of the department. No order as to cost. MM/K-12/L Revision dismissed.