' C.M. No.236/C of 1998 ' It was directed by this Court, vide order, dated 22-6-1998, that the present C.M. Shall be taken up along with the main case as per the request of learned counsel.
2. Muhammad Yousaf etc, through the filing of the application in hand, seeks production certain documents, mentioned in para.9 of the application, in additional evidence, which has been opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Upon the examination of the contents of the application, I find that the applicants have not been able to make out a sufficient ground for allowing them to produce the said documents in additional evidence. It has not been proved on record that why these documents were not produced before the lower forums, inasmuch as no such application was submitted before either of the Courts. It has been held in Sher Baz Khan and others v. Mst. Malkani Shibzadi Tiwana and others (PLD 2003 SC 849) that unsuccessful party shall not be granted opportunity to fill up the weaker parts of his case.
4. In view whereof, the request of the said respondents to lead the additional evidence is declined and this application stands dismissed.
' MAIN CASE ' Petitioners/defendants, through the filing of the present revision petition, have called in question judgment and decree, dated 2-10-1996, whereby the learned District Judge accepted the appeal of the respondents Nos.1 to 7, decreed their suit and set aside the judgment and decree, dated 20-6- 1995. Passed by the learned trial Court, through which, it dismissed the suit filed by the said respondents.
5. . Precisely stated the facts of the case as discernible from the memorandum of revision petition, are that the respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed a suit for possession against the petitioners and respondents Nos.8 to 10, with respect to the land measuring 3 Kanals, 5 Marlas comprising of Khasra No.18 on the basis of the ownership wherein they claimed the exchange of cultivation between their forefathers. The plaintiffs said to have left possession of Khasra No.17 and claimed possession of Khasra No.
18. The petitioners contested the suit. The learned trial Court framed eight issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately, on the basis of the findings on Issues Nos.6 and 7 dismissed their suit vide judgment and decree, dated 20-6-1995. Respondent's appeal was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, who decreed their suit and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 2-10-1996, hence the present revision petition.
6. . The learned counsel for the petitioners, while supporting the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and while referring to para.3 of the judgment, has vehemently asserted that the plaintiffs could not prove that any exchange of land was made between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has not entered appearance.
7. . I have examined the impugned judgment and find that the learned Additional District Judge has exhaustively embarked upon the issues, involved in the case, appreciated the evidence on record and reached to the proper conclusions, which, to my mind, are not open to exception. The learned lower Appellate Court has, in detail, discussed each and every aspects of the case and even while referring to the previous litigation between the parties, decided the said issues in favour of the plaintiffs. I have also perused the evidence on record in juxtaposition with the findings given by the learned Appellate Court and find that the inferences drawn by the learned Additional District Judge are not only in accordance with the record of the case, but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject.
5. I have also examined the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court and compared the same with the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and find that the said judgment is not sustainable in law and suffers from a grave legal errors, which have been rectified by the learned Appellate Court by reversing the findings of the learned trial Court and substituting its own findings, which are supported by reasons. I am not inclined to restore the judgment of the learned trial Court, which has rightly been reversed by the learned appellate Court.
6. In my view as the impugned judgment is neither contrary to the evidence on record nor in violation of the principle of administration of justice, thus the judgment of the learned appellate Court should ordinarily be preferred. If any case is needed, judgments reported as Mir Muhammad alias Miral v. Ghulam Muhammad (PLD 1996 Karachi 202) Illamuddin through Legal Heirs v. Syed Sarfraz Hussain through Legal Heirs and 5 others (sic) and AASA v. Ibrahim (2000 CLC 500) can be referred.
7. In the above perspective, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment is legal, un- exceptionable, apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, thus, the same is maintained.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision petition is devoid of merits hence dismissed in limine. 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.