' SHOAIB SAEED, J.---Through this writ petition impugned orders dated 5-4-2011 and 24-2-2011 passed by respondents Nos.4 and 3 respectively are being assailed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are real sister and brother of the petitioner. Ghulam Rasool (father of the petitioner) executed Mutation No,419 dated 28-1-2006 in favour of Mst. Ameeran Mai-respondent No,1 regarding land measuring 24 kanals situated in mauza Garhay Wahin, Tehsil and District Multan. On gaining knowledge with regard to the said mutation petitioner filed a suit titled Imam Bakhsh v. Ameeran Mai, etc. On 16-5-2007. Written statement was filed by the respondents. Issues were framed, on which both parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The case was fixed for arguments on 27-5-2010, which was adjourned for a few dates and finally the arguments were heard on 29-9-2010 and the case stood fixed for 12-10-2010 for orders. Thereafter an application for additional evidence was moved by respondents Nos.1 and 2 on 22-1-2011. Contesting reply whereof was filed by the petitioner.
Respondent No,3 accepted the said application with costs of Rs,1000 on 24-2-2011 allowing Halqa Patwari namely Muhammad Ashraf and Revenue Officer Rai Inayat to appear as witnesses. The said order was assailed through civil; revision which was also dismissed on 5-4-2011, hence this writ petition.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that application for additional evidence was an afterthought. It was filed after lacunas came to light during course of final arguments in order to plug the gaps. The said application was allowed. It was also averred that after statement of the counsel for the petitioner closing his evidence has been made, opportunity to provide additional evidence cannot be granted. Reliance is placed on Messrs Bata Shoe Company and 2 others v. Muhammad Arshad Siddiqui and another (1991 SCM R 1775), Rahim Bakhsh and another versus Civil Judge Lodhran and 3 others (1985 CLC 387) and Sher Baz Khan and others v. Mst. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and others (PLD 2003 SC 849).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that application for additional evidence can be moved at any stage of the proceedings and that is why besides provisions of Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. Such like application can also be moved at the appellate stage under Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P.C., if it is essential for just and proper decision of the case on its merits. Reliance is placed on Mst. Balqees Akhtar versus Additional District Judge and others (2013 M LD 1686(Lahore).
5. Petitioner and respondents inter se are real brother and sister. Mutation by virtue of which Mst.
Ameeran Mai claims ownership said to have been made/effected on 28-1-2006 by (Ghulam Rasool father of the parties) is under challenge in the suit pending with the trial Court. Two witnesses Halqa Patwari and Revenue official were allowed to depose. The said witnesses are material witnesses in respect of the document under challenge. Admittedly during pendency of the appeal, the said witnesses have already deposed and were also cross-examined by the petitioner's counsel. Both courts have held that deposition of said witnesses would help in advancement and were essential for a just and proper decision in resolving real controversy between the parties. The case-law referred to above by the petitioner's counsel are distinguishable from the facts of this case. Each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below which do not require any interference by this Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction. There is no merits in this petition, which is dismissed.
Petitioner dismissed.