Production of additional evidence

2016 CLC 1125 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XLI, R.27, Ss.107 & 115Production of additional evidencePowers of appellate Court and revisional CourtDistinction

Appellate Court shall have same power and perform in accordance with procedure prescribed for courts of original jurisdiction

Appellate Court after resettling issues may finally determine suit but revisional court after calling record of any case will decide illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defects before the proceedings below

Power to permit additional evidence was confined only either to Trial Court or Appellate Court

Revisional court has no power to finally determine or take additional evidence unlike appellate court

Appellate court has vast and wide powers to reopen and cause addition in record already maintained by Trial Court whereas revisional court would restrict itself to examine illegality or irregularity in proceedings of courts below.

2016 CLC 1125 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XLI, R.27, Ss.151 & 115Production of additional evidencePowers of Revisional CourtScopeApplicant filed application to produce additional evidence that was dismissedRevision against, and Constitutional petition were also dismissedApplicant again filed revision petition to seek permission to produce additional evidenceValidity

Concept of additional evidence under O.XLI, R 27, C.P.C. was alien to revisional jurisdiction, however, in exceptional circumstances by exercising power under S.151, C.P.C. and that too only to clarify something, such process could be adopted

Additional evidence which was being sought to be produced or brought on record could not be allowed in revisional jurisdiction with intent to fill lacuna

Revisional court, in no circumstances, was competent to allow production of additional evidence of any kind.

2014 YLR 1639 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XVI, R. 1Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionProduction of additional evidenceScopeWitnesses who were required to be produced were material witnesses with regard to the document under challenge

Deposition of said witnesses were essential for a just and proper decision in resolving real controversy between the parties

No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 MLD 1237 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 64Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.27Production of additional evidenceScopeSuit for declaration of titleInheritance

Plaintiff's sought declaration to the effect that they were the legal heirs of the original deceased owner of the suit property, along with the defendants, and were entitled to a share in the deceased's property

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiffs had made application under O.XLI, R.27, C.P.C. to place on record the passport of the original owner of the suit property, and it was clear that the entries on said passport had been subsequently made

Said documents were inadmissible at the belated stage as the same were not offered at trial stage or the first appellate stage

Oral evidence regarding proof of the plaintiffs' relationship with the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had not been established

Plaintiffs in accordance with Art. 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 had not produced the witnesses who were personally known them and the witnesses were not of the area in which the predecessor resided

One witness was the material uncle of the plaintiffs while the other was also an interest witness and their statements, thus, could not be relied upon

No documentary evidence had been produced by the plaintiffs and they were not parties to the previous round of litigation in relation to the suit property

No illegality was found in the findings of the courts below

Revision was dismissed.

2014 MLD 711 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. XIII, Rr. 1 & 2Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 44Writ petitionProduction of additional evidenceScope

Plaintiff moved application for production of additional evidence which was allowed by the Trial Court subject to payment of costs and on non-payment of costs defendant filed application for rejection of the same which was dismissed concurrently

Parties to the suit should produce all the evidence or list of witnesses at the first hearing of the suit and if a party failed to produce the same at the first hearing then court might allow additional evidence on sufficient cause

Trial Court had committed no illegality while allowing the application

Writ petition was dismissed.