JUDGMENT CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---The instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order and judgment/decree dated 17-6-2003 and 14-6-2004 passed by respondents Nos.2 and 1 respectively, whereby the application under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. Was rejected and revision thereof was also dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos.3 to 15 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration against defendants-respondents Nos.16 to 33 and predecessor in interest of respondents Nos.4 to 41, namely Hafiz Aman-Ullah to the effect that they are entitled to get land measuring 382-Kanals 16-Marlas on the basis of different agreements of transfer of land dated 20-9-1959 and 28-5-1971 and respondent No.15/plaintiff No.7 is also entitled to get land measuring 62-Kanals 18-Marlas on the basis of agreement dated 21-12-1972, executed by Hafiz AmanUllah. In alternate they prayed for a decree for specific performance of above mentioned contracts along with perpetual injunction as a consequential relief.
3. Hafiz Aman-Ullah defendant No.1 in the suit, filed conceding written statement along with defendants Nos.3 and 6, namely, Hassan Bakhsh and Mst. Aloodan Khatoon and also made statements and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Later on during the pendency of suit Hafiz Aman-Ullah died on 21-12-1996 and his legal heirs were impleaded and amended plaint was filed.
On 11-7-1997 the plaintiffs moved an application under Order XV Rule 12, C.P.C. To announce the judgment against the said Hafiz Aman-Ullah and other defendants who filed consenting written statement. The said application was rejected on the said date and amended plaint was filed on 23-7-1997. Thereafter the plaintiffs again filed an application under Order XV Rule, 1, 2, C.P.C. For pronouncement of judgment and decree against the legal heirs of said Hafiz AmanUllah and other non-contesting defendants, which was accepted by learned trial court on 27-11-1997.
The petitioner and respondents Nos.4 to 41 challenged the validity of judgment and decree dated 27-11-1997 under section 12(2) of C.P.C. On the grounds of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation.
Written reply to the said application was filed and learned trial Court settled issues on 7-3-2003 and when the evidence was being recorded the petitioner tried to tender original I.D card of his deceased father Hafiz Aman-Ullah vendor of property. An objection was raised on the other side.
The said application was rejected vide order dated 17-6-2003. The petitioner filed civil revision against the said order, which was also dismissed on 14-6-2004 on the ground that the civil revision was not maintainable. Hence, the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order and judgment/decree passed by the learned courts below are illegal, against law and facts on record, hence, are liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was barred by time and subsequently application under Order XIII Rule 2, C.P.C. Was not maintainable as the petitioner did not mention the reasons for non-production of document which he afterwards tried to bring on record. The defendants themselves made the consenting written statement and rightly decree was passed by the learned trial Court.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The main contention of the petitioner is that the I.D card is the sole document on the basis of which the comparison of signatures or thumb-impressions of deceased Hafiz Aman-Ullah can be made and there is no other document available for this purpose. In fact the consenting written statement was of the deceased vendor Hafiz Aman-Ullah and the present petitioner is son of Hafiz AmanUllah who is trying to agitate that the transaction already finalized is based on fraud.
Reliance is made upon "2005 CLC 1698 and 2008 CLC 722" that there is no bar to put on record the documents even at belated stage but case of the petitioner is that his predecessor did not transfer the land which question is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court where the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is pending and the suit against the other defendants is still pending. Both the learned courts declined to grant the application under Order XIII Rule 2, C.P.C. At this belated stage on the ground that the petitioner is trying to fill in the lacunas.
8. Learned trial Court rejected the application under Order XIII Rule, 2 of C.P.C. On 17-6-2003 merely on the ground that I.D card of deceased Hafiz AmanUllah (real father of petitioner) was already in the possession of petitioner and he did not rely upon the same earlier as is required under the law and no reason for failure to produce the document at an early stage has been mentioned in the application. The civil revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 14-6-2004 by learned appellate court relying upon "2002 YLR 2569" observing that the same is relevant and clear on the point wherein it is held that the application under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. Was rejected for production of documents after conclusion of evidence by the plaintiff. The case in hand is not at par to that of above referred case as the same is fixed for documentary evidence. The evidence of petitioner is under process and not completed whereas the rebuttal of respondents is also yet to be recorded. The petitioner has only to produce the I.D card which is a public document.
Admittedly the document was not produced by the petitioner/applicant as is required under the law even he also failed to show a good cause for non-production of the same. However, that is a public document and not a private one which the petitioner wants to produce in evidence, as the same has not yet been concluded. The Superior Courts held on the point that when there is a document whose genuineness is beyond any shadow of doubt, learned court allowed to produce the same at latter stage and a general order refusing to accept any document is bad for substantial justice. In these circumstances, I hold that the permission should have been granted to the petitioner to produce the document when the respondents have right to rebut the same through evidence and the courts should avoid the technicalities to deliver the substantial justice.
Thus, the instant writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and judgment/decree dated 17-6-2003 and 14-6-2004 passed by learned courts below and application Under Order XIII Rule 2 of C.P.C. Is granted with cost of Rs.10000. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 25-11-2010.