' The petitioners/plaintiffs filed suit against the respondents in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Swat seeking declaration that they were owners to the extent of their claim in the properties mentioned in the heading of the plaint. Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents to alienate the said property in any manner was also sought. Decree for possession as alternate relief was also claimed. The said suit was resisted by the defendants/respondents by filing written statement.
The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19-4-2003. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Swat. It was during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioners also filed an application for grant of permission to adduce additional evidence. The said application was resisted by respondents. The learned Appellate Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the said application vide judgment/order dated 21-4-2004. Being not satisfied with the said order the petitioners have filed the revision petition in hand.
2. Mr. Fateh Muhammad Advocate the learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that the petitioner had placed on file copy of the sale-deed dated 23-1-32, Exh.P.W.2/1. They only wanted to produce the concerned clerk from the office of Sub-Registrar where the said deed was registered which was just a formality, but the Courts below failed to appreciate the said position.
3. It was also argued that the learned Appellate Court could not dismiss the application for additional evidence independently without decision of the appeal.
4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force. Perusal of the record annexed with the revision petition shows that the petitioners/ plaintiffs had filed suit in hand on 6- 6-1994. During the pendency of the suit the learned trial Court had provided full opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence of their choice in support of their claim_ The petitioners exercised their right and examined all the witnesses they wanted to examine. Even sale-deed dated 23-1-32 was placed on record as Exh.P.W.2/1. The learned trial Court while taking the entire evidence into consideration and after discussing the sale Exh.P.W.2/1 had dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
5. The question that needs determination in this case is as to whether the petitioners could be allowed to produce additional evidence, answer to this question is in negative. Perusal of the order- sheets of the learned trial Court reveals that the petitioners have been given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and taking advantage of the said opportunity he placed on record the sale- deed dated 23-1-32, Exh.P.W.2/1, but the said deed was disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. By producing the officials of the office of the Sub-Registrar, the petitioners wanted to provide corroboration for oral testimony which, as mentioned above, had been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. The oral evidence was complete, therefore, additional evidence under Order 41, rule 27 could not be allowed. Reliance in this regard was placed on Maddipati Narasimhamurti and others v. Hayat Khan and others AIR 1940 Madras 911. Similar proposition came up for hearing before the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in Bashir Ahmad v. Ahmadul Hag Siddiqui 1985 SCM R 1232. In the said case the Appellate Bench had the application filed under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. With the observation:-- "Rule 27 of Order XLI, C.P.C. Does not envisage filling up of the lacunas left by a party in the evidence before the trial Court. Additional evidence under the above rule may be allowed to be recorded if the Appellate Court itself so requires. Additional evidence cannot be allowed in order to enable a party to patch up the weaker part of its case or to fill up the omission or to enable it to raise a new point. It can be allowed only if it is required by the Appellate Court itself on the basis of its own appreciation of the evidence already on record."
6. The August Supreme Court of Pakistan while approving the said order held:-- "We have perused the judgments on this point which were relied upon before the Division Bench by the parties, namely, Messrs Muhammad Saddiq, Muhammad Umer and another v. Australasia Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 684; Khan Iftikhar Ahmad v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corpn. PLD 1971 SC 550 and Secretary to Government of West Pakistan and another v. Gulzar Ahmad PLD 1969 SC 60, as also the earlier judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Muhammad Ikhlas v. Muhammad Ismail PLD 1983 SC 466 and are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case the view taken by the learned Judges in the High Court refusing permission to the petitioner to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, was quite correct and cannot be faulted."
7. Keeping in view the above quoted judgment of August Supreme Court of Pakistan, I am of the firm view that the learned Appellate Court has rightly refused to allow the petitioners to adduce additional evidence. I have not been able to find out any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error or defect in the impugned judgment/order warranting interference. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
Revision .