' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 26-10 1984. Was filed by the respondent in the court of Senior Civil Judge Lahore. Petitioners contested the suit, denied the execution of the agreement dated 26- 10-1984. Learned trial court on conclusion of the trial dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 2-12-2000. Respondent challenged the order of dismissal of the suit in appeal before the learned lower appellate court and during the pendency of the appeal, moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. For additional evidence. Learned lower appellate Court vide order dated 26- 3-2004, accepted the application and sent the file of the case back to the learned trial court for allowing the respondent an opportunity- to produce in evidence his passport and thereafter to permit the petitioners/defendants to rebut the documentary evidence of the' respondent. Learned trial court was directed to retransmit the file to the learned appellate court after recording of - (sought for) additional evidence, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent while appearing as a witness, admitted in his cross-examination that he came from Kuwait to Pakistan in November, 1984 and admitted that after his arrival he never went back to Kuwait. Learned counsel submitted that suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that agreement was statedly executed on 26- 10-1984, when the respondent was not in the country. Learned counsel argued with vehemence that by admission of plaintiff, valuable rights have accrued to the defendants/petitioners and permission of the additional evidence at the appellate stage was neither necessary nor required in view of unconditional admission of the respondent..
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that word " due to inadvertence could not be recorded in the course of recording of evidence. Respondent in his cross-examination has, in fact, stated that he had not returned to Pakistan from Kuwait in November 1984. Learned counsel further submitted that inadvertence/mistake came to the knowledge of the respondent, when he perused the impugned judgment and decree whereby the suit of respondent was dismissed. Learned counsel went on to argue that passport is a public document . And permission to produce the same, as additional evidence, is material and relevant for just decision of case. Further it will be essential for extracting truth. Learned counsel after referring to the case "Noor Rehman and others v. Muhammad Yousaf" (2000 CLC 1138) argued that while invoking revisional jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the petitioner .To show that the impugned order is either without jurisdiction or it is suffering from material irregularity or illegality.
The case set up by the petitioners to challenge the impugned order of the learned appellate court does not qualify to the provisions of Section 1,1.5 C. P C
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. And record perused.
5. Determination of date of return of respondent from Kuwait, is of utmost importance, in the instant controversy. In case it is proved that respondent was not in the country, then the question of execution of agreement does not arise at all. Respondent statedly returned to Pakistan on 4-2-1982 and was within the country, at the time of. Execution of the agreement to sell. This fact can be determined through allowing the respondent, opportunity to lead additional evidence, and at the same time an opportunity to the petitioners to rebut the same through evidence. Court provided equal opportunity to each party and impugned decision in this regard is neither perverse nor illegal. It is wrong to contend that through admission of the respondent in the course of cross examination, the doors for proving the factum of his return, were shut for the respondent once for all. Respondent still has the right to prove through cogent evidence that alleged date of return was against fact hence not conclusive and binding. It has incorrectly been recorded in the course of cross examination. While holding so, I find support from the dictum of law laid down by the apex court in the case of "Ahmad Khan v. Rasul Shah and others" (PLD 1975 SC 311), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that admission of facts, which is only relevant and not conclusive, may be shown to be wrong, even if it amounts to clear admission. This view was subsequently followed in the case of "Barkhurdar v. Muhammad Razzaq" (PLD 1989 SC 749).
6. The court has remanded the case and in its remand order, it was observed by the learned appellate court that evidentiary value of the passport will be considered at the time of addressing argument in the main appeal. Petitioners still have the right to prove that the passport has no evidentiary value as against admission made by respondent in the course of his cross- examination. The learned appellate court has permitted the respondent to adduce additional evidence, to do complete justice between the parties. It is cardinal principle of law that parties should be provided opportunity to have their dispute resolved on merits, as against a .Contest on technicalities.
7. For the foregoing, the impugned order of the learned appellate court is devoid of any illegality or legal infirmity to call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. This petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.