KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through the captioned petition, petitioners Haji Gahno Khan and 5 others have called in question order dated 07.09.2017, passed by the learned VI-Additional District Judge, Larkana, allowing Civil Revision Application No.13 of 2017, re: Dr. Bhagwandas v. Haji Gahno Khan and others, filed against order dated 04.03.2017, passed by the learned II-Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, in the subject F.C. Suit, whereby application under Order XVI, Rule 1(2)(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) of respondent No.1 Dr. Bhagwandas, seeking summoning of the official witnesses to give evidence and produce the document from the public record, was dismissed by the learned trial court.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 23.02.2006 plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2/respondents Nos.1 and 2, Dr. Bhagwandas and Dr. Bhagwant Devi filed the subject suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, recovery of damages/ business loss worth Rs.30,59,41,408/-, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The petitioners/ defendants have filed their written statement, wherein they have denied the allegations levelled against them. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed issues on 01.09.2008.
Respondent No. 1/plaintiff Dr. Bhagwandas filed application under Order XVI, Rule 1(2)(3) read with Section 151, C.P.C, praying for summoning the Assistant Commissioner, the Mukhtiarkar and Sub-Registrar to give evidence with regard to the general power of attorney dated 26.07.2001, and to produce the original general power of attorney in evidence from their record, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 04.03.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff/ respondent No.1, Dr. Bhagwandas, filed Civil Revision Application No.13 of 2017, which was ultimately heard and decided by the learned VI-Additional District Judge, Larkana, vide impugned order dated 07.09.2017, whereby the said revision application was allowed as discussed in paragraph-I (supra). Thereafter the petitioners have filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for' the petitioners has mainly contended that earlier the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 and 2 had filed their separate applications under Order VI, Rule 1, C.P.C. which were dismissed on 07.04.2016; that the subsequent application under Order XI, Rule 1(2), (3) read with Section 151, C.P.C., filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 Dr. Bhagwandas, was not maintainable; and, that the impugned order dated 07.09.2017, passed by the learned VI-Additional District Judge, Larkana, is illegal. Learned counsel prays for setting-aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2017, passed by the learned Revisional Court.
4. Respondent No.1 Dr. Bhagwandas, who is present in person, has mainly contended that earlier applications filed under Order VI, Rule 1, C.P.C. were not maintainable; that subsequently the subject application was filed under the relevant provisions of law, namely, under Order VI, Rule 1(2)(3), read with Section 151, C.P.C., praying for summoning the Assistant Commissioner, Mukhtiarkar Dokri and Sub-Registrar, Larkana to give evidence and produce the general power of attorney dated 26.07.2001, purportedly executed by him (Dr. Bhagwandas) in favour of one Moti Ram, the defendant No.2 from the office record in the interest of justice by showing sufficient cause; that the learned trial court without considering such aspects of the case, had dismissed the said application vide order dated 04.03.2017, which was against the principles of natural justice; and, that the learned VI-Additional District Judge, Larkana has rightly allowed his revision application, filed against the aforesaid order dated 04.03.2017, passed by the learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 07.09.2017, which meets the ends of justice. He prays for dismissal of this constitutional petition.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No.1 Dr. Bhagwandas and have gone through the material brought on record. From a perusal of record it would be seen that the respondents/plaintiffs Dr. Bhagwandas and his wife Dr. Bhagwanti have filed the subject F.C. Suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, recovery of damages/business loss, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction, challenging the general power of attorney dated 26.07.2001 purportedly executed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 Dr. Bhagwandas in favour of Moti Ram, the defendant No.2/respondent No.3, being false, forged and bogus one denying its execution, on the basis whereof the sale deed in question was allegedly executed by defendant No.2 Moti Ram in favour of defendant No.6, who allegedly sold out the land to the defendant No.9, who in turn is alleged to have sold out 'the suit property to defendant No. 1/petitioner Haji Gahno Khan Jatoi. Since the very execution of the document, namely, general power of attorney, proposed to be produced in evidence by the official witnesses, has been specifically denied, which is said to be false, forged and fabricated one, containing his false signatures, therefore, production thereof from the public record is not only essential for the trial court to arrive at just and right conclusion, but it may also substantiate the claim of the defendants including the petitioner of their having purchased. the suit property through registered sale deeds by establishing genuineness and validity of the said power of attorney; even otherwise genuineness, validity or otherwise of the power of attorney proposed to be produced in evidence would be assessed and decided by the learned trial court in the wake of evidence to be adduced before it and its production in evidence by the official witnesses would be for the advancement of cause of justice; and no prejudice seems to have been caused to petitioner Haji Gahno Khan, who derives his claim of ownership over the suit property as third purchaser and the defendant No.6 in whose favour the sale deed was purportedly executed on the basis of the general power of attorney proposed to be produced in evidence has not called in question the impugned order dated 07.09.2017.
Needless to say that the rules framed under the Code are for the advancement of cause of justice and the same cannot be allowed to operate so as to defeat the ends of justice and the technicalities have to be avoided in view of the well settled law.
6. It is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioners have failed to file copies of the pleadings of the parties and other necessary documents and suppressing such material documents adversely reflects upon the petitioners, who have not come in court with clean hands. It needs no reiteration that the relief in writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and he who comes in court with unclean hands is not entitled to the grant of the discretionary relief.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 07.09.2017, passed by the learned revisional court does not suffer from any illegality or any jurisdictional defect.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order, passed by the learned revisional court, attracting interference of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Accordingly, this petition having no substance is dismissed with no order as to costs along with the pending applications.