' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.---The decree of possession, dated 21-6-2001 was challenged by the petitioner in appealbefore. The District Court, Faisalabad. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for producing en record two agreements and some receipts as additional evidence. This application was contested and rejected. The order of rejection was challenged in Writ Petition No,2067 of 2003 which petition has been dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 19-2-3003. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this judgment of the High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same argument before us that the application ought to have been allowed and that both the Appellate Court as well as High Court have erred in the matter.
3. We are not impressed. It is well-settled that additional evidence cannot be received to fill up the lacuna or provide for deficiency in the cast of a party. It is also well settled that the additional evidence is permitted if, the Court needs the same for purposes of disposal of the case. By requesting the Court to permit him to produce private documents as additional evidence, the petitioner was clearly trying to fill up a lacuna and provide for the deficiency in the case. This cannot be permitted. If petitioner's counsel has been negligent, as contended, the petitioner may have to proceed against the counsel concerned. However, this is not a good reason for grant of permission to adduce additional evidence.
4. No interference is called for against the impugned judgment. This petition is hereby dismissed and leave is refused.