1984 PLP 356 (CLC)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XVIII, r. 2 & O. XLI, r. 17‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15‑Additional evidence‑‑Trial Court allowing production of additional evidence, about a year after close of parties, evidence‑Contention that valuable right accrued to petitioners by lapse of time, has been taken away by passing such order, held, may be relevant in case of amendment of pleadings‑Such contention cannot be pressed into service in a case relating to production of additional evidence‑Additional evidence can be permitted to be produced even by a Court of second appeal.‑[Evidence]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XVIII, r. 2, Expln. I (High Court Amendments Lahore) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15‑Additional evidence -Plaintiff producing incomplete copy of pedigree table‑‑Defendants laying hand on complete copy of pedigree table after parties' evidence closed‑Order for production of such evidence, held, in interest of justice for final disposal of case,‑[Evidence]. (c) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑ ‑‑‑ Art. 9‑Jurisdiction‑Finding on question of fact or question of law Recorded by Court of competent jurisdiction, held, cannot be called in question by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction, howsoever erroneous may be‑[Jurisdiction]. ORDER This Constitutional petition assails the orders, dated 9th February, 1983 and 21st March, 1983 passed respectively by the learned Civil Judge, Hafizabad and the learned ,District Judge, Gujranwala. The petitioners herein filed a suit for possession of land by pre‑emption against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Hafizabad. Parties produced their evidence and the same was closed on 24th of February, 1982. Thereafter the case was fixed for arguments. Both the parties obtained numerous adjournments for arguments. On 30th October, 1982 however, the respondents filed an application for being permitted to adduce additional documentary evidence. Their prayer was objected to by the petitioners but the learned Civil Judge, Hafizabad after hearing the parties vide his order dated 9th February, 1983 permitted the respondents to produce a certified copy of complete pedigree‑table as additional evidence on payment of Rs. 200 as costs. The petitioners challenged the vires of this order by way of revision petition before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala, but their revision petition also failed and was dismissed, on 21st March, 1983. Hence the present Constitutional Petition.

2. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that by passing the impugned orders the learned Courts below have taken away a valuable right of the petitioners which had accrued to them by lapse of time off account of negligence of the respondents. It has further been urged that in this case parties evidence was closed on 24th February, 1982 and, therefore, the respondents could not be allowed to produce additional evidence, on 9th February, 1983 that is after about a year of the closing of the parties evidence.

3. The argument that a valuable right which had accrued to the petitioners by lapse of time has been taken away by passing the impugned order may be relevant in case of amendment of pleadings, but this argu ment cannot be pressed into service in a case relating to production of additional evidence. In suitable cases additional evidence can be permitted to be produced even by a Court of 2nd appeal. Similarly the other argument about delay is also of no substance because it transpires from the perusal of the record that delay in this case has been mostly caused by the petitioners.

4. While adverting to merits it may be observed that the petitioners claimed their better right of pre‑emption on account of being collaterals to the vendor. The vendees i. e. the respondents also asserted themselves to be the collaterals of the vendor. An issue was thus framed as to whether the plaintiffs possessed superior right of pre‑emption as against the vendees. In regard to this issue the plaintiffs/petitioners produced copy of pedigree‑table but that was incomplete. The defendants were able to lay hand on a complete copy of the pedigree‑table after the parties evidence was closed. The learned trial Court considered the production of this evidence to be in the interest of justice and for the final disposal of the case. In these circumstances the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hafizabad is supportable even on merits.

5. It may also be observed that no jurisdictional defect qua the impugned orders has been alleged or pointed out. 1t has also not been shown in any manner that the impugned orders suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. It is a settled proposition of law that a finding on a question of fact or on the question of law recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction however erroneous it may be, cannot be called in question by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the under consideration Constitutional petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. M. A. K. Petition dismissed.