' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---This order shall dispose of the instant civil revision petition as well as Civil Revision No, 1074 of 2009 titled "Mst. Zaib un Nisa etc. v. Muhammad Tehseen etc." as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these revision petitions.
2. In both the civil revisions judgment and decree dated 10.09.2009 has been challenged whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 30.01.2006 and remanded the case to the civil court to decide it afresh while allowing the application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. For additional evidence filed by respondent No, 1.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of these revision petitions are that petitioners in both the civil revisions filed suits for declaration and permanent injunction on 12.09.1996 against respondents challenging the validity of mutation No, 1348 dated 28.01.1996 and mutation No, 466 dated 16.01.1996 for the land measuring 99 kanals 11 marlas situated in Chak No, 56/12-L Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, to the extent of their 2/3rd share each as they were pardanasheen ladies and, therefore, the said mutations were void ab-initio. It was the case of the petitioners that they never appointed respondent No,2 as their attorney for the purposes of exchange or sale of the suit property. The suit was contested whereafter issues were framed and the evidence was recorded and the suit was decreed on 30.01.2006. However, on the same day i.e, 30.01.2006, respondents filed an application to produce Revocation Deed (Abtaalnama) dated 07.08.1996 as additional evidence to show that power of attorneys given by the petitioners to respondent No,2 was cancelled subsequently i.e, after 7 months. However, the said application was dismissed straightaway, without calling any reply, on the ground that the said document though in existence, was not referred either in written statement or in evidence and that evidence of defendants has been concluded on 24.09.2005 but the application was filed at the stage of final arguments (in fact the day the judgment was pronounced) just to prolong .The matter pending since 12.06.1999. However, the appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.09.2009 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the civil court while allowing the application for additional evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that without giving any reference to the said Abtaalnama either in the pleadings or in the evidence, it could not be produced in evidence.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents submits that Abtaalnama is a registered document and that the respondents only have to show good cause why it could not be filed in the court under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C.
6. Arguments heard. File perused.
7. Admittedly, both the suits were instituted in the year 1996. The evidence could be concluded after a long period of about 8/9 years and on the day when the judgments were about to be pronounced, the applications were filed for producing additional evidence. A perusal of the written statements filed by the respondents does not reveal the existence of any Abtaalnama dated 07.08.1996. Said document is not even in this file in negation of Section 115, C.P.C. Moreover, the evidence produced by respondents as defendants also does not show any case of cancellation of general power of attorney (Ex.D1). I am surprised to note what occurred to respondents to file an application for additional evidence just on the day when the judgment was pronounced.
Undoubtedly, an application for additional evidence can be filed at any stage but the applicant has to establish a good cause. It has never been the case of the respondents that after the issuance of power of attorneys by the petitioners on 07.08.1996, the same was subsequently cancelled. The term good cause has been held to depend upon the facts of each case, but the party in default has to show a legally sufficient reason, why a request should be granted or the inaction/omission should be excused. In short, the judicial conscious of the Court should be satisfied with justifiable reasons, and such request should not be allowed as of right or as a matter of coarse. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Nazir v. Fazal Karim and others (PLD 2013 SC 255).
The case titled Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah and 9 others (1992 SCM R 1778), pertains to different facts and circumstances as the provisions of C.P.C. Were there to advance the cause of justice rather than injustice by setting up a new case. The other judgment cited as Moazam Majeed Bajwa v. Tariq Munawar and others (2012 M LD 417), is not applicable as the document in question is not a public document as claimed by the petitioners.
8. In Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 5 others v. Malik Ibrahim and Sons and another (2000 SCM R 1172), it has been held that parties are bound to lead evidence on the point of controversy and the perusal of record reveals that real controversy was regarding transaction entered on the basis of power of attorney for which specific issue was also framed, therefore, this judgment will not help the petitioners. However, in Fiaz Hussain and 7 others v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs (1999 M LD 1386), it was held that no evidence can be led on the plea which was not raised in the pleadings as the parties cannot be taken by surprise. In Mumtaz Khan and 8 others v. Haji Nawab Khan (2003 M LD 399), it was held by the Single Bench of this Court that the parties cannot be allowed to depart from their own pleadings and to plead a ground which they have never raised in the written statement. Lastly, the judgment titled Muhammad Yousaf v. Mst.
Maqsooda Anjum and others (2004 SCM R 1049), is fully applicable in which following has been held as under:-- "3. We are not impressed. It is well-settled that additional evidence cannot be received to fill up the lacuna or provide for deficiency in the case of a party. It is also well settled that the additional evidence is permitted if the Court needs the same for purposes of disposal of the case. By requesting the Court to permit him to produce private documents as additional evidence, the petitioner was clearly trying to fill up a lacuna and provide for the deficiency in the case. This cannot be permitted. If petitioner's counsel has been negligent, as contended, the petitioner may have to proceed against the counsel concerned. However, this is not a good reason for grant of permission to adduce additional evidence."
9. In this view of the matter, these civil revisions are allowed as a result of which application for additional evidence is dismissed and the case is remanded to the appellate court which shall decide the appeal on merits.