'KHALIL AHMAD,J----Muhammad Rafiq Hussain respondent on 21-12-1994 filed a suit for declaration or in alternative for specific performance and possession of land detail of which has been mentioned in para 1 of the plaint against Muhammad Bashir Alam Khan etc. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants. The learned trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and after recording of evidence vide judgment and decree dated 6-11-2002 decreed the suit of respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner challenged the same by filing appeal, which is still pending before the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioners filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. For additional evidence, which was dismissed vide order dated 10-3-2005. Hence, this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the documents sought to be produced in evidence are public documents and were not in the knowledge of the petitioner earlier and the moment it came to his knowledge he filed an application for production of additional evidence and that registered sale-deed being a public document was also to be produced in the additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on 2004 M LD 742, and contended that these documents being copies of the public record should be allowed to be produced as additional evidence as there is no possibility of their being tampered with. He has also relied on PLD 2002 SC 615 to contend that power to allow additional evidence is discretionary in nature and it can be exercised in appropriate cases and if the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined for the just decision of the case or for any other substantial cause, it could always, do so after recording reason. He relied on 1993 M LD 1324 to argue that documents sought to be introduced in the case as additional evidence were not available with petitioners at the time case proceeded before the Court, but became available later on in very peculiar circumstances and the genuineness of the documents was not controverted by opposing party, and that the additional evidence be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the documents were in the knowledge of the petitioners. The appeal was filed on 15-5-2004 and the application under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. Was filed on 7-3-2005. Further argued that provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Are not applicable as there is no judgment and there is no illegality committed by the lower appellate Court.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. I have gone through the documents in question, which are registered documents and certified copies of the Revenue Record and as such are part of public record. The suit was filed on 21-12-1994 and was decided after almost nine years on 10-5-2004. The appeal filed is still pending. Since the documents are part of public record, therefore, they are allowed to be produced as additional evidence as there is no possibility of their being tampered with.
6. The revision petition is accepted and the learned Additional District Judge seized of the matter is directed to allow the production of documents mentioned in the application, as additional evidence and decide the appeal within two months without fail since it is an old matter pending since 1994.