' SYED MANZOOR HUSSIAN GILANI, J.--- This appeal with leave of the Court is filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed at Mirpur on 19-5-2004 in Civil Revision No,24 of 2004, whereby the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur on 19-2-2004, is upheld through which the appellants were disallowed to place before the Court certain certified documents at the stage of the statement of the appellant/defendant before the trial Court.
2. The brief facts necessary and relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that an application was moved on behalf of the appellants on 17-1-2003 before the trial Court to allow them to produce copies of certain documents relating to the plot in dispute as evidence. The trial Court disallowed the production of the certified copies of documents on the ground that the case was about to be closed and that these were not produced at the time of filing of written statement, neither were these mentioned in the written statement.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that certified copies of the register of allotment and allotment permit were requested to be produced which were obtained from Mirpur Development Authority.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the documents were certified copies of public record which were obtained from the competent Authority after filing written statement and that there was no doubt about their authenticity and genuineness. The learned Advocate relied upon unreported judgments of this Court in cases titled Allah Ditta v. Shadam Khan (Civil Appeal No,101 of 2001, decided on 28-6-2002) and Fazal Dad v. Sajida Begum (Civil Appeal No,59 of 1999 decided on 29-10-1999).
5. The learned Advocate for the respondents defended the order passed by the Courts below contending that under Order XIII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no such document can be received at any stage of the proceedings, if it was not produced at first hearing. He contended that documents were in existence and in possession of an office from which the copies could be easily obtained and produced, but having failed to do so, respondents cannot be allowed at this stage.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have gone through the record and reports of the cited cases. There is no cavil with the proposition of law that the documents which are in possession and power of a party must be produced at the first hearing of the case. Although it can be said that a document, copy of which can be obtained on an office on an application, is within power of a party, but practically the documents are not in his power and control. A party needs to locate the office, file application for obtaining the copies of the same and then furnish it in the Court. A party relying on such document is expected to obtain a copy of such document well in time for production before the Court, but if the party fails to do, it is not absolutely precluded from producing the same before the Court at a later stage, if good reason is given for that. The rule is not inflexible that it cannot be allowed at all. Even an Appellate Court may allow certified documents on showing good reasons. However, it varies from case to case depending upon the conduct of a party as to when such an .Indulgence can be allowed. If the Court is satisfied that the document is authentic, it is not concocted, fabricated, prepared later and that it was not in possession and power of the party and is relevant and necessary for just decision of the case, it can be allowed at any stage. The documents sought to be produced in this case are the certified copies of public record, copies of which are obtained from the relevant authority of the Government. There can be no doubt about their authenticity and genuineness, however, their effect on the case only remains to be judged by the Court.
7. We are fortified in our view, by the following authorities:-- ' In Muhammad Bakhtiar Khan v. Qari Bashir Ahmad PLD 1957 Lah. 803 it was observed at page 807 of the report:-- ".... That whenever a document is produced before a Court to the admission of which objection is taken on the ground that it was not relied upon in the list of documents submitted by the party, or that it was not produced at the first hearing of the suit in accordance with Order XIII, rule 1, C.P.C., the Court has to consider: (1) whether there are good grounds for the failure to enter it in the list or to produce it at the first hearing, (2) is there any doubt about the genuineness of the document?
(3) will the opposite party be prejudiced by the fact that it had no timely notice of the intention of this party to produce the document and if there be possibility of such prejudice, will there be too great a delay in the conduct of the case by granting the opposite party an opportunity to rebut this document? Whether the delay will be unreasonable depends on the circumstances of each case."
' In Faizullah v Mst. Zaini PLD 1984 (AJ&K) 41 it was held that while exercising its judicial discretion to receive or reject documents, the Court will liberally construe the procedural provisions of Orders VII and XIII, C.P.C. In favour of reception of documents rather than their rejection. It was further held that object is to exclude documents which are apparently suspicious, forged or fabricated and to expedite the trial.
' In Piracha Multipurpose Corporation v. Province of Sindh 1992 CLC .1627 while dealing with the proposition it was held:-- "The defendants have opposed the admission of these documents on the ground that the same have been filed after a very long delay and that the delay has not been explained. After hearing the counsel for the parties I am satisfied that a plausible explanation has been given for the delay and the production of the documents will not cause any undue inconvenience or prejudice to the defendants. Their authenticity or genuineness is not denied.
' Under these circumstances I allow the application."
8. Copies in this case were produced by the Advocate for the appellant on behalf of the appellant before the evidence was closed. These documents are placed on the file of the trial Court and only remain to be tendered in evidence. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellants were totally negligent in producing the documents in the Court. However, they were late in doing so. It would definitely necessitate a further process by allowing these documents to be tendered and exhibited in evidence. In that case, the delay of one or two adjournments may actually take place in the final disposal of the case which can be compensated by due costs.
9. The reports of the cases of this Court placed on record by learned Advocate for appellants also support his contention.
In view of above, allowing this appeal it is directed that the these appellants shall be allowed to tender see documents in evidence subject to payment of Rs,5,000 as costs.