Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs, 6,50,000/- against the respondent/defendant, before the learned District Judge under the summary procedure provided under Order XXXVII CPC on the basis of pronote and receipt both dated 19.4.2002, which was resisted by the respondent, who filed the written statement. The learned trial Court framed the issues and both the parties produced their respective evidence. On 6.12.2005, the petitioner filed the application seeking permission to produce three photographs of the parties, in additional evidence, pleading therein that these photographs show that the defendant received the suit amount. The respondent resisted the said application. Ultimately, the learned trial Court dismissed the application, vide impugned order dated 20.1.2007, hence the present petition.
2. Learned counsel states that since the photographs show that the respondent received the suit amount from the petitioner in the presence of the witnesses, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that those photographs may be produced in additional evidence. He has added that the photographs are the public documents. He has relied upon the case reported as Iqbal Ahmad and others vs. Khurshid Ahmad and others (1987 SCM R 744). Learned counsel, on a Court question, admitted that the petitioner neither mentioned about those photographs in his pleadings nor entered the same in the list of reliance.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. It is settled law that an unsuccessful party is not to be granted opportunity to fill up weaker parts of its case. In view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Sher Baz Khan and others vs. Mst. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana (PLD 2003 SC 849); Muhammad Yousaf vs. Mst.
Maqsooda Anjum (2004 SCM R 1049) and Shtamand and others vs. Zahir Shah and others (2005 SCM R 348), which are completely applicable to the facts of this case, I feel that the impugned order deserves to be sustained.
4. Coming to the plea of the petitioner raised before the learned trial Court, that photographs could not be produced as those were stolen, cannot be believed under any stretch of imagination. If the Photographs were lost, the petitioner, at least, could have mentioned and relied upon in the list of reliance and also could get fresh photographs from the negatives. The learned counsel could not demonstrate from the case law that the photographs are part of public record. It cannot be conceived under any stretch of imagination that a private photograph could be considered as a part of public record. Article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, shows that the photograph is not one of the documents, which are public documents.
5. As regards the reliance 'of the learned counsel on the case of Iqbal Ahmad and others, ibid, the same is misconceived. Suffice it to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said case allowed the certified copy of "Jama Bandi" to be tendered in evidence which is part of the record of the rights and was beyond dispute. To my mind, a private photograph cannot be acquainted with the certified copy of Jama Bandi. The said judgment is of no avail to the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of merits, hence stands dismissed in Whine.