1. MUNIR AHMED GHAUDHARY, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sehnsa dated 07.05.2010, through which an application to produce additional evidence was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that petitioners filed a pre-emption suit against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Sehnsa. Written statement was submitted, issues were framed and after recording of the evidence and hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Sehnsa dismissed the pre-emption suit on 30.06.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sehnsa.
2. During pendency of the appeal, petitioners submitted an application for additional evidence.
3. Objections were filed by the opposite party. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Sehnsa dismissed the said application for additional evidence on 15.05.2010. Hence this revision petition.
4. 3 Arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Tufail Hussain Bukhari, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued that petitioners want to append a copy of record of rights 2003-04 of village Islamabad as an additional evidence, but the learned Judge of subordinate Court dismissed, the said application by ignoring the facts and provisions of law. The learned Counsel further argued that the said copy of record of rights was appended with the original suit but the names of all the owners of the relevant Khewat were not entered in the said copy. Now, the petitioners have obtained a fresh copy in which the names of all the owners of the relevant Khewat are entered and the said copy is required to be exhibited in evidence in addition to other evidence. The suit filed by the present petitioners was dismissed due to the previous copy of the record of rights in which the names of the present petitioners were not entered. It is just and proper to allow the said additional evidence to protect the valuable rights of the petitioners. The learned Counsel requested to accept the revision petition and to allow the application for additional evidence and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments:-
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 4. petitioners, Counsel fob'
5. 1994 SCR 238.
6. PLJ 1997 AJ&K 84, 2000 YLR 1847, PLJ 2003 SC 50, PLJ 2005 Lahore 1502.
7. 2009 YLR 125, 2009 SCR 199, & 2011 CLC 1407.
8. While controverting the learned Counsel for the Ch. Mehboob Ellahi, Advocate, the learned respondent No. 1, contended that the learned Judge of subordinate Court has recorded his findings in accordance with the facts and provisions of law. The petitioners were legally bound to append all the documents on which they relied, at the time of filing of the original suit. The petitioners did not file any application for additional evidence before the Trial Court. Even the petitioners filed the application for additional evidence after 06 months of filing of the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sehnsa. So, the said application cannot be allowed. The !Earned Counsel requested to dismiss the instant revision petition and referred the following precedents in support of his arg uments:--- ) 1996 SCR 22
(2) 1999 SCR 466
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the 'earned Counsel - for the parties, the record and the precedents referred have been examined with utmost care. Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C.
9. Formulates that the parties of an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the Appellate. Court provided the. Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In the present case, the petitioners have already appended a copy of record of rights 2003-04 exhibited as "PB' with the original suit.
10. Now, the petitioners want to place on record a copy of record of rights regarding the same years but with new entries, Meaning thereby that the petitioners want to fill their evidence through a fresh document. The parties cannot be allowed to patch up the weaker parts of their case or to raise new points. This principle has been laid down in the precedent 1999 SCR 466.
6. The precedents referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioners contain admitted principles of law, but the facts of the said precedents have no conformity with the facts of the present case. The learned Additional District Judge, Sehnsa has recorded his findings which are based on sound and cogent reasons and no indulgence is required by this Court.
11. The nub of the above discussion is that finding no force in the instant revision petition, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. Civil revision .