' Through this C.R. Petitioners/defendants have challenged the order, dated 26-6-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petitioners' application for the production of additional evidence.
2. The facts briefly stated are that Allah Ditta predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a pre-emption suit against the sale dated 7-5-1974 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar, which suit was decreed on 12-5-1977. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19-7-1988. Petitioners feeling aggrieved of the above mentioned judgments and decrees of the two Courts below filed R.S.A. No,64 of 1988 before this Court which was heard and decided on 24-10-1971, by which the petitioners' appeal was remanded to the learned First Appellate Court with the direction to allow the parties to produce such evidence as is considered relevant by the-learned First Appellate Court upon Issue No,1 and then to decide the said issue afresh in the light of the law laid down by the superior Courts cited in the said judgment.
3. After remand the learned Additional District Judge who was seized of the petitioners appeal granted opportunities to both the parties to produce evidence in terms of the remand order passed by this Court as mentioned above. The respondents/plaintiffs closed their evidence on 9- 4-2002 by tendering in evidence Exh.P.10 and Exh.P.11 but the petitioners led no evidence in rebuttal and closed their evidence on 7-5-2002. The matter was thereafter, fixed for final arguments on 21- 5-2002 when the petitioners put in an application seeking permission to produce two certified copies relating to death entries, one of Allah Ditta son of Shahab Din and second of Allah Ditta son of Saboo, in additional evidence. This application was contested by the respondents. Ultimately, the learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 26-6-2002 disallowed that application. This order of the learned Additional District Judge has been impugned through the present civil revision.
4. Sh. Karim-ud-Din, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity by disallowing the application of the petitioners in violation of the terms of remand order passed by this Court dated 24-10-2001, as according to the learned counsel through the said order this Court had directed the Appellate Court to allow sufficient and ample opportunities to the parties to adduce their evidence for and against on Issue No,
1. Further submits that mere delay in submission of application is no ground, if proposed evidence is necessary and essential for just decision of the appeal. Further submits that proposed evidence consists of certified copies of the public record and the authenticity or genuineness of the same can hardly be doubted. Lastly; it is argued that in fact Allah Ditta predecessor tin-interest of the respondents acquired property through mutation and as held by the Honourable Supreme. Court in 1999 SCM R 1870, unless a person is owner of some property on the basis of registered sale-deed he cannot claim his pre-emption right and in order to prove that Allah Ditta predecessor-in-interest of the respondents never acquired any property or the proprietary rights in any land through duly issued RL-II in his favour, the production of proposed evidence is essential.
5. Conversely, Mian Ahmad Nadim Arshad, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the impugned order of the. Learned Additional District Judge neither suffers from any illegality nor irregularity and the same is based on sound appreciation of law and facts. Learned counsel further submits that in case the petitioners' request is allowed it would amount to reopening the trial of the suit which would cause further delay in the disposal of the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, whereas the matter has already been delayed by three decades. Lastly the learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance on the judgment reported as Ijaz Muhammad Khan and others v. Mst. Sahib Bibi and others 1996 SCM R 598 has argued that no case for interference with the order of the Appellate Court has been made out and the petitioners should not be allowed to produce additional evidence at this stage.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
7. Admittedly the case was remanded by this Court allowing the parties to lead additional evidence on Issue No,
1. It is correct that both the parties were given ample opportunity by the learned Additional District Judge to produce the evidence which they wanted to lead and both the parties exhausted their right by making statements to close their evidence but the question still requiring determination is whether the documents which the petitioners want to produce are essential for the just decision of the appeal and to me both the documents are essential to certain extent and also in order to avoid any ambiguity as to whether the property owned by Allah Ditta predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, on the basis of which he was claiming preferential right of pre-emption, was acquired by way of registered sale-deed or otherwise earlier the matter was remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for want of sufficient evidence on this point.
Moreover, the only reason given by the learned Additional District Judge while disallowing petitioner's application is that of delay in submission of the application, whereas, it is an established principle of law that mere delay is no ground for disallowing any party to lead additional evidence, otherwise, various provisions of. The Civil Procedure Code empowering the Court to allow additional evidence at any stage, would become redundant, especially in almost every case prayer for additional evidence is made usually at a later A stage and some times even at fag end of the trial, rather even at Supreme Court level and while deciding such application, Courts always ignore the stage and consider the question whether the same was necessary/essential for just decision of the matter. Through the said application the petitioners merely want to place on record certified copies of public documents which are per se admissible.
The permission to produce additional evidence never means that the genuineness of the document or for that matter its evidentiary value has been impliedly admitted in favour of the party producing that document. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, in the said judgment, possibility of fabrication of document sought to be produced as additional evidence or making of any alteration or interpolation during the pendency of lis, was in question, whereas in the instant case the documents sought to be produced are part of the public record and even the learned Additional District Judge while disallowing the petitioners' application has not expressed any doubt about the authenticity or genuineness of the same. As I have mentioned above, these documents are per se admissible being part of the public record, the respondents may, if so advised, produce evidence in rebuttal to those documents. The permission to produce these documents as additional evidence would in no way be taken as if these documents have come on record in a mechanical manner, the learned Appellate Court would be free to decide the relevancy of these documents and also their probative value qua the matter in dispute. I am, therefore, inclined to allow this civil revision. The petitioners are allowed to get these documents exhibited on record by adopting legal means and the respondents are also at liberty to lead any evidence in rebuttal. However, for the delinquent act of the petitioners, they are burdened with costs of Rs,5,000, the payment of which is condition precedent for production of additional evidence.
8. Before parting with this judgment, I would like to point out that earlier this Court while remanding-the case had directed that this being an old matter, should be decided within six months. The judgment was announced on 24-10-2001 but unfortunately till passing of the impugned order dated 10-4-2002, the said direction could not be complied with due to submission of application for additional evidence by the petitioners and secondly because of pendency of this revision against the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 10-4-2002. I therefore, direct that the learned Additional District Judge in all fairness and eventualities would proceed to decide the petitioners' appeal expeditiously but not later than 30-4-2005. If need be, the learned Additional District Judge may hold day to day hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioners. No order as to costs.