1. ' Brief facts in this writ petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief against the respondents Nos.2 to 5, which, was contested, issues were formulated and at the time of evidence the plaintiffs intended to produce certain documents forming part of the criminal case duly relied by the plaintiff in the list of- reliance, through summoning of witnesses.
2. ' Learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants objected that description of documents is not mentioned in the list of reliance hence are hit by the provisions of Order VII, rule 14, C.P.C. While the stance of the plaintiffs was that they had given the witnesses names in the list of witnesses and they had also mentioned the file of the public documents in the list of reliance. Learned trial Court observed that plaintiff has summoned Qamar Ahmed Bhatti and Muhammad Bashir, Handwriting Experts as witnesses in the Court and the plaintiff through the said witnesses wants to prove copies of their reports on the case file of criminal case titled "State v. Rana Ali Sher" under sections 420/268, P.P.C. Decided by learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore. Objection of learned counsel for the defendants is that certified copies of the said reports do not find mention in the list of reliance filed in the Court. Certified copies of the reports of experts sought to be produced is a public document and that said documents are part of the judicial file and the said file finds mention in the list of reliance of the plaintiff. Even otherwise the provisions of mentioning the documents on the list of reliance are meant to avoid fraud and forgery, which is not position of the documents in this case. The documents being public one the said objection is accordingly overruled". Being aggrieved the respondents filed revision petition and the learned revisional Court vide order dated 21-9-1995 accepted the same and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that order of the learned trial Court was well-reasoned and could not be set aside by the learned Appellate Court. He also informed the Court that although further proceedings in this Court were stayed but the stay order could not be communicated to the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court proceeded with the remaining evidence except the documents,which were impugned in the instant writ petition.
4. ' Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners can produce the evidence through certified copies. The revisional Court has rightly held that the documents form part of record of judicial proceedings are the public documents but the document merely produced on the judicial record does not become a public document ipso facto. Although the reliance is made in the list of reliance of the public document but there is no specific description that which document out of file of criminal case has been relied. In such circumstances the objection raised by the plaintiffs party was apt and the certified copy of the report could not be produced as desired by the plaintiff party.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to the provision of Order VII, rules 14 and 15, C.P.C., it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the learned trial Court to allow the documents, which are specifically mentioned in the list of reliance. Learned trial Court has rightly held that certified copy of report of expert sought to be produced is a public document. The said document is a part of the judicial file and the said file finds mention in the list of reliance of the plaintiff. In fact the object of reliance of document is to safely put the defendant to guard and allow him to cross-examine and confront that document if he desires to. Moreover, the second object is to restrain the parties to suit from producing a document through fraud or forgery. Order VII, Rule 15, C.P.C. Is the provision where the document is not in plaintiff's possession or power. Order VII, rule 14, C.P.C. Provides that where the plaintiff relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. Penalty for not complying with these provisions of rule is provided under Order VII, rule 18, C.P.C., which provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint and which is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
6. These provisions clearly show that it is within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court to allow or disallow the petitioner from production of document in view of circumstances of each case. In the present case order of the learned trial Court was based on sound reasonings and was passed within provisions of law.
7. 5-A. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some evidence has been led by the parties without bringing the "stay of further proceedings" by this Court, into the notice of learned trial Court. It seems that both the parties allowed the evidence to be led which in no way affected subject- matter of this writ petition, therefore, no order in respect of the evidence already placed on record is made.
8. ' After perusing the record and keeping in view the facts and circumstances and law relating to the subject-matter of instant writ petition, the same is accepted and the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court is set aside. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.