' GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN MALIK, J.--- This revision petition calls in question the order, dated 3-11- 2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, Abbottabad, dismissing application dated 12- 10-2006 filed by Waqar Hussain petitioner in appeal No,19113 for permission to adduce additional evidence/document to prove his title. This application was submitted at the stage of hearing of appeal, the same was contested and ultimately it was dismissed. Hence this revision petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for possession of house, fully described in the plaint as well as for recovery of outstanding rent against the petitioner.
Later contested the suit by submitting his written statement. He denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and claimed that he was owner in possession of the disputed house since time immemorial.
4. Later on he took somersault at appellate stage and claimed that as a matter of fact he has purchased the suit house from its owner Mst. Muzaffar Jan vide unregistered sale agreement deed dated 13-12-1997 on payment of sale consideration of Rs,1,50,000 that the stamp paper was misplaced and therefore, at the time of submission of written statement he could not hand over the same to his counsel. However, he added that he had informed his counsel about the said sale transaction but the counsel put up entirely different case before the Court against his instructions and interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner explained that the petitioner being illiterate person particularly in the field of law was helpless in understanding the legal view point of his counsel. He went on to say that during pendency of the appeal he could discover the sale-deed and handed over to him (Mr. Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, Advocate). Thereafter, he presented the application along with the deed for permission to adduce additional evidence in appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Abbottabad, who after hearing the parties wrongly and illegally rejected his application.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. Which enables the Appellate Court to allow additional evidence having a material bearing on the merits of the case and submitted that if the document is proved genuine it would conclusively resolve the controversy between the parties once for all.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the alleged sale-deed if permitted to be placed on file as additional evidence it will in no manner advance the cause of justice rather quite a new case contradictory to the earlier stance would be introduced; that evidence sought to be produced is not required for the just decision of the case because evidence on record is enough to decide the case in one way or the other in the light of parties pleadings.
7. It is an undisputed fact on record that this document is unregistered, it was not produced before the trial Court nor was relied upon by the petitioner. Rule 27 of Order XLI, C.P.C. In the light of law laid down in 1988 SCMR page 1653 would not apply at appeal stage where the document was neither tendered nor referred to at the trial. Moreso, under the said rule a document can be permitted for placing on record where the Court itself considers it necessary for just decision of the appeal. To say that when the available material on record is not enough to pronounce judgment, then of course additional evidence can be allowed suo motu or on the request of a party.
8. In this particular case the petitioner is moving the Court for taking additional evidence so that he may amend his written statement, correct errors, mistakes, omissions and introduced quite a new and contradictory case to the one previously, set up at the trial. Undoubtedly, a party to the appeal can ask the Court for examination or appreciation of evidence already on record but rule 27 does not permit a party to apply for additional evidence, the discovery of which was made at a later stage, it was not relied upon or referred to at the initial stage in the pleadings or evidence before the trial Court. It has been rightly noted down by the learned Appellate Court that it does not feel difficulty in arriving at correct conclusion of the matter on the basis of evidence already available on record. Moreso the petitioner has not pointed out any shortcoming in the evidence led by him at the trial in support of his plea taken in the written statement. According to Privy Council decision reported in AIR 1931 page 143, inadvertence of the party, mistaken illegal advise by the counsel, negligence or ignorance etc. Of a party in producing document at proper stage are not a legal and valid ground to permit such party to fill up the lacunae, set up a new case contradictory to the earlier stance. To say that the requirement of additional evidence should be entrance requirements of the Appellate Court and not of a party. In the instant case, the Court of appeal does not need production of additional evidence or document particularly of the type which the petitioner intends to produce, therefore, revisional Court is not supposed to help the petitioner for patching up his case.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is well-founded, based on proper reasoning and correct exposition of law which cannot be taken to any exception.
10. Accordingly, this revision petition being meritless stands ID dismissed. No order as to costs.