1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- By filing this application the plaintiff has prayed for permission to produce documents. The plaintiff in the affidavit in support of application submits that on 3-3- 2006 the matter was referred to Director Anti-Corruption and at the relevant time when the issues were framed on 19-4-2006 the documents were with the Director Anti-Corruption and that the copies of the documents were supplied to the learned counsel for the defendant.
2. ' The defendant has filed counter-affidavit and submits that the application was filed with ulterior motives and after considerable delay of 14 (fourteen) months and submits that no course for delay in filing the documents has been shown.
3. ' Mr. Kh. Shamsul Islam, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause for not presenting the documents in Court within the time allowed by the Court. He submits that the documents, which he wants to file are available on record and copies of the same were supplied to the learned counsel for the defendants. He submits that documents, which are already available on record, can be produced in evidence without submitting the same in accordance with the provisions of Order XIII C.P.C. He has relied upon the following reported cases:- -
(1) Mst. Rukhsana Bibi v. Muhammad Ansar 2006 YLR 666, (2) Umar Hayat v. Additional District Judge and others 2004 SCM R 1367, (3) Messrs Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Limited v. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority 2003 CLD 1497.
4. ' Mr. Abid S. Zuberi, the learned counsel for Defendant NO,5 submits that only those documents can be produced which were annexed with the plaint or the documents upon which reliance has been placed. He referred to the report of Mr. Abbas Ali, Additional Advocate General, and submits that from the report it is clear that copies of documents were not supplied to the Advocates for the defendants. He further submits that issues were framed on 19-4-2006 and the plaintiff can produce the photocopies along with the list. He also disputed the genuineness of the documents. He relied upon the following reported cases:---
(1) Javed Rafat Khan v. Messrs Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Limited PLD 2005 Kar. 1, (2) Mrs, Uzma Aziz v. Mst. Maryam (Dorislions) and others PLD 2006 Kar. 58, (3) Anwar Ahmad v. Mst. Nafisa Bano 2005 SCM R 152, (4) Rab Nawaz and others v. Muhammad Amir and another 1999 SCM R 951.
5. 'Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C. Provides that parties shall produce, at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence on which they need to rely and which has not already been filed in Court.
6. Order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C. Provides that no documentary evidence in possession or power of a party not produced at the first date of hearing should be filed in evidence subsequently, unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court.
7. 'Rule 1 of Order XIII gives the right to the parties to produce all documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court. This is an admitted position that photocopies of certain documents were annexed with the plaint and photocopies of several documents were filed in Court in compliance of the order, dated 14-4-2005. The parties are only required to produce such documentary evidence on record which has not already been filed in Court. Regarding the documents which are not available on record the same can be produced within the time allowed by the Court at the time of framing of the issues or the same can be produced in accordance with rule 2 of Order XIII, C.P.C.
8. The purpose of Order XIII, C.P.C. Appears to be to avoid possibility of the parties presenting forged, fabricated and manoeuvered documents at later stage of the suit and that the parties should be aware about the documentary evidence and may not be taken by surprise. In my view the photocopies of the documents which were annexed with the plaint and the photocopies of documents which were produced in Court in compliance of order dated 14-4-2005 can be produced in evidence without formal permission of the Court. However, the documents which were not available on record the permission can only be granted on showing good cause to the satisfaction of the Court and the Court should record the reasons for doing so. In my view no satisfactory ground has been urged by the plaintiffs for not producing the documents as required by law. Mr. Abid S. Zuberi is right in saying that if original were with the Director Anti-Corruption the photocopies can be filed.
9. ' In view of the above this application (C.M.A. NO,7425 of 2007) is disposed of with the observations that the original of the photocopies already available on record can be produced in evidence, the documents which are not on record cannot be produced as no good cause to my satisfaction has been shown. The objection of Mr. Abid S. Zuberi regarding the genuineness of documents cannot be considered at this stage and the same will be considered at the time of production of documents.