NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, J.---This petition is directed against the order dated 8th May 2019 (hereinafter the "impugned order "), passed by learned Civil Judge-IX, Quetta (hereinafter the "trial court "), whereby the application filed by the respondent (plaintif f) for additional evidence, has been allowed. Hence, this petition with the following prayer: "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the above law points, facts and circumstances the order dated 08-05-2019 passed by Civil Judge IX Quetta may kindly be set aside by dismissing the application for producing documents filed by the respondent/plaintiff, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play ."
2. Facts of the case are that the respondent (plaintif f) filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the petitioners (defendants) with the averments that the plaintif f and defendant No.1 are owners in possession of adjacent property situated at Mouza Sobani Shadenzai, Tehsil and District Quetta (detail whereof has been provided in the plaint); later on it transpire d that the defendant No.1 (Dr. Muhammad Jamal) had sold out a piece of land to Noor Ahmed (defendant No.2) through his son which too without any intimation whatsoever to the plaintif f.
Hence, this suit with the following prayer: "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the following terms: A. Declare that the plaintiff has preferential right of pre-emption over the property situated at Mohal Karez Sobani and Mohal Karez Shadenzai, Mouza Shadenzai No.1, Tappa Shadenzai No.1, Tehsil and District Quetta, which is adjacent to the property of plaintiff; B. Declare that any transaction in respect of property in question made between the defendant Nos. I and 2 is against the law and prejudice the interest of the plaintiff and to direct the defendant No.1 to receive an amount of Rs.5,40,00,000/- and transfer the property in dispute in the name of plaintiff and handover peaceful possession of the property in dispute in favour of plaintiff as he is having his own property adjacent to the property in question; C. The defendant No.1 may also be restrained permanently to transfer or alienate the property in dispute in the name of defendant No.2; D. The defendant No.2 may also be directed not to create the right of any third party in the property in question; E. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be extended in favour of the plaintiff in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay ." ,
3. On service of notice, the defendants (petitioners) filed written statement, wherein they raised certain legal objections in respect of maintainability of the suit and contested the same on merits, as well.
4. After framing issues, the parties exhausted their respective sides. In the meanwhile, respondent (plaintif f) filed an application under Order XIII, Rule 2 read with Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 and section 151, C.P.C. for placing documents on record through additional evidence, which was allowed by the trial court, vide its order dated 12th September 2018. Thereafter , another application under Order XIII, Rule 2 read with Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.0 was filed seeking permission to re-examine the witness, and allowed (herein-impugned before this Court).
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record with his assistance, which reflects that the respondent (plaintif f) filed an application under Order XIII, Rule 2 read with Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 and section 151, C.P.C. for placement of documents on record, which was allowed, as a result, PW-3 Sahibzada Muhammad Saleem, Halqa Patwari, appeared before the trial court with revenue record of Mutation No.20, Khewat and Khatooni Nos.29/31 Shamilat Mohal and Khasra No. 649/1, measuring 54 Rods, 14 Poles, vide Ex: P/3-A.
Surprisingly , the respondent (plaintif f) filed another application under Order XIII, Rule 2 read with Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for production of same document, which had already been placed and brought on record, but allowed by the learned trial court; hence, this petition.
6. It is well settled principle of law that once a document has been brought on record of the court, cannot be placed again to fulfill lacunas left by the witness or surfaced in cross-examination. The courts cannot be used as tools for fulfillment of lacunas left by the parties. The object of re-examination is to clear an ambiguity which has arisen upon cross-examination. It does not provide a chance to the party for making improvement; thus, the condition' essential for re-examination is existence of some ambiguity which has crept into the examination in-chief by the embarrassing question asked in cross-examination. The learned trial court erred in law to allow same document to be brought on record, which too, without any justifiable cause and valid reasons. It is important to mention here that a judge is supposed to wear all the laws of the country on the sleeves of his rob and apply correct law and to justly administer the rights and the remedies of the citizens which duty is fundamental to and enshrined in the concept of the administration of justice for another important reason that an act of Court shall prejudice no man. The impugned order being in violation of well-known and recognized principles of law is liable to be reversed.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside; the matter is remanded to the trial court with the directions to proceed with the matter expeditiously and dispose of the main case, within a period, not more than two months.
Order accordingly .