' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Mst. Waziran Mai daughter of Barkhurdar seeks setting aside of the orders dated 15-5-2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan through which he allowed the respondents to get exhibited the photostat copy of Exh.P.1 as secondary evidence. The prayer made in the writ petition is reproduced hereunder:-- " the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 15-5-2007 may be declared to be without lawful authority and the proceedings of trial Court in exhibiting photostat copy of Exh. P.1 and further superstructure be also struck down."
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 Haq Nawaz son of Barkhurdar filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge Taunsa Sharif for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3-7-1991 and possession of the disputed property as mentioned in the head note of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/respondent No,1 filed an application for permission to produce copy of Iqrarnama/agreement to sell dated 3-7-1991 Exh.P.1 in secondary evidence on 3-9-2005.
Reply of the said application was filed by the petitioner/defendant contending that the application has been filed without any cause of action to prolong the proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that two other miscellaneous applications were also pending before the trial Court. One application was filed by the defendant for production of the alleged agreement to sell. Two applications were filed by the plaintiff, one for grant of temporary injunction and the other for permission to produce secondary evidence of Exh.P.1. The learned trial Court by one order dated 18- 1-2007 disposed of all the three applications including the application for grant of temporary injunction. Thereafter from the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial Court:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property as per bainama executed dated 3-7-1991 as sketched plan ({{URDU TEXT}}) and the defendants have no concern with the suit property and the plaintiffs are also entitled that the defendants may be permanently restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff?
OPP.
(2) Whether the suit is time-barred and thereby is liable to be dismissed? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(6) Whether the suit has been filed just to harass the defendants and the defendants are entitled to get the special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD.
(7) Relief.
' Against the said order, dated 18-1-2007 Haq Nawaz, plaintiff-respondent No,1 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Taunsa Sharif on 26-2-2007. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal vide order dated 5-5-2007 and the application of respondent for producing secondary evidence was allowed, which order has been assailed in this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge wrongly allowed the appeal, which was not maintainable as the respondent should have filed the revision petition as the order passed by the trial Court on the application for producing the secondary evidence was not appealable. Further submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is void ab initio so the writ petition will not be hit by the question of limitation or laches as void order can be assailed at any time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases reported as Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera and others v.
Sarfaraz Khan and others PLD 2001 SC 514 and Member (S&G)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another v. Syed Ashfaque Ali and others PLD 2003 SC 132.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the order dated 15-5-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge has been implemented as copy of the agreement to sell has been exhibited as Exh.P.1 in secondary evidence; that the writ petition is hit by laches; that the impugned order was passed about three years earlier and the same was implemented, and at this juncture any adverse order passed in this petition would be a futile exercise.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Additional District Judge. He has rightly allowed the production of agreement to sell as Exh.P.1 as secondary A evidence. When the original document has been destroyed or lost secondary evidence can be produced as provided under Article 76 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The said relevant Article 76(c) of the Order is reproduced hereunder:-- "76(c) Cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given.---(c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reasons not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time."
The petitioner/plaintiff in his application has given reason for permission to produce secondary evidence of Exh,P.1, that the original document was stolen and photo copy of which is filed at the time of B filing the suit. The grounds taken by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application of the plaintiff-respondent are not in accordance with law. As far as the objection of the petitioner that the appeal was not maintainable is concerned, in fact the learned trial Court vide order dated 18-1-2007 disposed of three applications, one for grant of temporary injunction as well as the application for production of the agreement to sell in secondary evidence by C a common order dated 18-1-2007, so the plaintiff-respondent rightly filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Taunsa Sharif. In the appeal before the lower Appellate Court prayer was made that the order dated 18-1-2007 be set aside in toto. Relief under Article 199 of the Constitution is a discretionary relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition, which has not been filed within a reasonable time. The writ petition was filed on 18-1-2010 after more than two years of the passing of the impugned order on 15-5-2007. Law helps those who are vigilant about their rights and not of those who are indolent.
Filing of this petition with delay shows that the petitioner is indolent, for which he is not entitled to any discretionary relief. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the D respondent that the order dated 15-5-2007 was implemented and the learned trial Court in the light of the said order has exhibited the agreement to sell as Exh.P.1 in secondary evidence, if any irregularity or illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in exhibiting the same the petitioner can raise this question at the time of final arguments in the civil suit, which is likely to be adjudicated in future.
The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not advance his case.
6. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.