MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Shakir Ali Khan etc. Filed a civil suit praying for a mandatory injunction requiring the respondents to remove the walls and keep open the passage of Koocha Khas for the petitioners. A copy of the plan was attached with the plaint. The respondents contested the suit.
When the case came up for final arguments the petitioners moved an application for permission to prove the site plan which had been annexed to the plaint but which had not been proved at any stage when the evidence was recorded. This prayer was rejected on the ground that meanwhile another plan had already been exhibited.
2. The petitioners felt aggrieved and moved the District Judge in his revisional jurisdiction. Their prayer did not find favour with the learned District Judge and, therefore, they filed a Writ Petition No. 4454/79 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by an order of a learned Single Judge of that Court on 18-8-1979.
Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It has been submitted before us that it was incumbent upon the civil Courts to have granted the permission.
4. Order 18(2) of the Code of Civil. Procedure gives the authority to the Court to grant permission for production of additional evidence. It is clear from the rule itself that, production of such evidence is not a matter of right and is dependent upon the discretion of the civil Court. This discretion was duly exercised by the learned Civil Judge and the petitioner was able to test the correctness of it by filing a revision petition before the District Judge. That is all that the law permits to the petitioners.
5. Since it was not a case of lack of lawful authority the writ petition wart just not maintainable before the High Court. The High Court, there fore, acted in accordance with law in dismissing the writ petition and we affirm that order Leave to appeal is refused.