1. M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, J. --- This supra titled revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 26.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad whereby the respondents were allowed to produce certain documents through their witnesses.
2. The precise facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff was recruited in the service of United Bank Limited in 1978 as Officer Grade-3 and in due course of time he was promoted as Officer Grade-1. The petitioner was charged for misconduct on which an inquiry committee was constituted. After inquiry his services were terminated vide order dated 10.1.2002. Against the above order the petitioner filed a review petition on 6.2.2002, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.2.2002. The petitioner filed an appeal before Secretary Finance which was not decided and consequently he submitted an appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan whereupon the matter was examined by the Finance Division Government of Pakistan and ultimately the petitioner was informed that after privatization of U.B.L. No appeal could be filed before Secretary Finance vide letter dated 11.9.2003. In the given eventuality, the petitioner assailed the order of dismissal by filing a suit for declaration before learned District Judge, Muzaffarabad on 10.10.2003. The learned District Judge, on an application of respondents under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C., rejected the plaint vide order dated 30.6.2004. Against the above-mentioned order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court which was accepted vide order dated 24.11.2006 and it was held that the suit of the petitioner was maintainable. Thereafter, respondents filed written statement before the Trial Court on 22.8.2008. After framing issues, the petitioner closed his evidence on 8.10.20t0 and the respondents were directed to produce their evidence. The respondents produced their witness namely Tariq Iqbal Abbasi on 25.11.2010. During his statement he (the witness) placed some documents on the record however, an objection was raised by the petitioner/plaintiff with regard to production of these documents on the ground that the same have not been relied upon in written statement nor have been produced at the first date of hearing. The objection was overruled by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad through the impugned order dated 26.11.2010, hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Court below by violating the mandatory provision of Order XIII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. He submitted that as the respondents failed to produce the documents in question alongwith the written statement, hence the same could not be permitted to be produced at the time of recording of evidence that too, in the statement of the witness. The learned counsel further submitted that it was enjoined upon the respondents to rely on all the documents in written statement or to produce these documents at the time of first hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his version, referred Muhammad Usman Mirza v. Wails Iqbal and others (1990 SCMR 964) and submitted that the impugned order of the Court below be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Muhammad ldrees Mughal, Advocate, while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that at the time of filing written statement it was specifically stated in para 5 that all documents, relating to inquiry proceedings, would be produced at the time of evidence, therefore, no illegality was committed by the Court below while overruling the objection of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that witness, Tariq Iqbal Abbasi, being Regional Manager of U.B.L.
5. Could not make his statement without referring documents in question which were also relevant for the purpose of disposal of the suit filed by the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the Trial Court, evidence and documents produced by the witness of the respondents and the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad. There is no cavil with the proposition of law that the documents which are in possession of a party must be produced at first hearing of the case as has been laid down in Order XIII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. This view also finds support from a case titled Muhammad Usman Mirza v. Waris Iqbal and others (1990 SCMR 964) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, if any party fails to do so, it is not precluded from producing the same before the Court at a later stage.
7. The rule is not inflexible and it is nowhere has been laid down in the said rule that documents going to the root of the case cannot be allowed at all at a later stage. Even an Appellate Court may allow documents on showing good reason. If the Court is satisfied that the document is authentic, and is not concocted, fabricated, prepared later, relevant and necessary for just decision of the case, it can be allowed at any stage. The documents sought to be produced in this case are public record maintained by the Bank and there can be no doubt about their authenticity and genuineness.
8. We are fortified in our view by the following authorities:-- PLD 1957 Lah. 803), it was observed at page 807 of the report-- "That whenever a document is produced before a Court to the admission of which objection is taken on the ground that it was not relied upon in the list of documents submitted by the party, or that it was not produced at the first hearing of the suit in accordance with Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C., the Court has to consider: (1) Whether there are good grounds for the failure to enter it in the list or to produce it at the first hearing, (2) is there any doubt about the genuineness of the document?
(3) will the opposite party be prejudiced by the fact that it had no timely notice of the intention of this party to produce the documents and if there be possibility of such prejudice, will there be too great a delay in the conduct of the case by granting the opposite party an opportunity to rebut this document? Whether the delay will be unreasonable depends on the circumstances of each case."
9. PLD 1984 (AJ&K) 41) it was held that while exercising its judicial discretion to receive or reject documents, the Court will liberally construe the procedural provisions of Orders VII and XIII, C.P.C. In favour of reception of documents rather that their rejection. It was further held that object is to exclude documents which are apparently suspicious, forged or fabricated and to expedite the trial."
10. Even otherwise the revision petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under Section 115 of C.P.C., which is reproduced as under:-- "115. Revision. - [(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case, which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears--
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.]"
11. Our this view is fortified by case-law titled Mst. Fazal Begum v. Bahadur Khan and another (PLJ 1983 Lah. 307).
12. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where the order amounts to a "case decided" and only where the applicant has been able to show jurisdictional defect in the exercise of jurisdiction and the Court below had acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction or has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested. The primary purpose of Section 115, C.P.C. Is for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction.
13. Civil revision .