MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J. The respondents Nos.1 to 13 (plaintif fs) filed a suit for declaration, partition, possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction against the petitioners (defendants) and respondents (defendants) Nos. 14 to 26 with the averm ent that one Karam Khan was owner of properties of the subject matter of the suit, who died in the year 1980. It was alleged that Mst. Dur Bibi, Bakht Bibi and Noor Bibi were daughters of late Karam Khan and plaintif fs and respondents (defendants) Nos. 17 to 19 being successors-in-interest are entitled for their respective share through Mst. Dur Bibi and Bakht Bibi.
2. The petitioners/plaintif fs contested the suit by way of filing written statement and alleged that Mst. Dur Bibi, Bakht Bibi and Noor Bibi were not daughters of Shakar Khan.
3. During proceedings before the trial Court, the plaintif fs filed an application under Order XIII(1)(2) Order XVI(1)(2) read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C), wherein at paragraph No.4 of the application, it is pleaded as under: "That the applicants/plaintiffs are intends (sic) to produce the RTS from of the Dur Bibi daughter of Karam Khan and Bakht Bibi daughter of Karam Khan which are required to be produced in this Court through the representative of the NADRA in order to establish their pea (sic) and to assist this court to reach the end of the justice, hence this application"
4. The petitioners contested the application by way of filing reply to the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sibi (hereinafter the "trial Court ") vide order dated 5th March 2019 dismissed the application. On Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.C. filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 13 (plaintif fs), the learned Additional District Judge, Sibi (hereinafter the "appellate Court ") vide order dated 12th April 2019 (hereinafter the "impugned order ") partly allowed the petition to produce RTC Form of Bakht Bibi and late Dur Bibi through concerned representative of NADRA .
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that in the impugned order , the application is allowed to the extent of Order XIII Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. while said application was dismissed to the extent of additional evidence, therefore, direction for producing RTC through representative of NADRA amounts to be an additional evidence, which as per impugned order has been declined, as such the impugned order cannot be sustained under the law .
6. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 13 contended that the petitioners in written statements had denied relationship of their precedessor-in-interest, therefore, the need for producing above document after filing of the suit is not tenable; that in respect of relationship, the above public document is essential for just decision of the case.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and law governing the issue. The respondents Nos.1 to 13 (plaintif fs) had filed application under Order XIII Rules I and 2 and Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C. The revisional Court while partly allowing the Civil Revision Petition allowed the application to the extent of Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. allowed the plaintif fs to produce the RTC through representative of NADRA, but dismissed the application to the extent of Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2, C.P .C.
Order XIII Rule 1, C.P.C. provides that the parties or their pleaders shall produce at the first hearing of the suit all documentary evidence of every descriptions in their possession or power on which they intend to rely and which has not already been filed in the Court and all the documents which the Court has ordered to be produced. Sub- Rule (3) of Order XIII, C.P.C. further provides that on production of documents under this rule, the Court may call upon the parties to admit or deny the documents produced in Court and record their admission or denial or as the case may be, however , where the party fails to produce the documents under Rule 1 of Order XIII or under Order VII, Rule 14, C.P.C. Order XIII Rule 2 is a rider which provides that if party failed to produce documents in their possession or power in accordance with requirement of the rule, shall be received at any stage of the proceedings on showing "good issue" to the satisfaction of the Court for non-production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for doing so.
The phrase "good cause" means adequate sound and genuine reason and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, no hard and fast and absolute criteria can be set forth, as to what constitutes a good cause, however , the phrase "good cause" used in Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. should be construed liberally to serve the ends of justice. Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. being a general provision applicable to both i.e. the plaintif fs as well as defendants. The rationale behind Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. is to prevent the fraud and not to penalize the parties for non-production of documents on the first hearing of the suit or at the time of filing plaint or written statement, if there is no element of fraud or doubt as to authenticity of the documents that the application ought not to be discarded as Rule 2 and the procedure are intended to advance balance on showing "good cause".
The provision of Order XVI (1), C.P.C. is mandatory by using word "shall" giving time frame of seven days to the party to file list of witnesses after settlement of issues and Sub-rule (2) further prohibits that the party "shall not" be permitted to call witnesses other than those in the said list except with the perm ission of the Court on showing "good cause" for the omission of the said witnesses from the list, therefore, not only the 'good cause" has to be shown by the delinquent party for calling a witness through the Court but at the same time, the applicant is required to explain the delay in disclosing the name of the witnesses. Reference in this respect is to be made to case reported in PLD 2013 SC 255.
7(sic). In the instant case, the respondents Nos.1 to 12 (plaintif fs) had claimed their share from the inherited property of late Karam Khan being successor-in-interest of Dur Bibi daughter of Karam Khan and respondent No.13 (plaintif f) namely Bakht Bibi being daughter of late Karam Khan. The petitioners categorically stated that Dur Bibi, Bakht Bibi and Noor Bibi (mother of respondents Nos.17. to 19/defendants Nos.10 to 12) are not daughters of late Karam Khan and thus denied relationship. The respondents Nos.1 to 13 though concluded their evidence, however , the revisional Court allowed them to produce RTC through representat ive of NADRA and declined the relief regarding Order XVI, Rule 2, C.P.C. Since RTC is a public document falls under Article 90 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order , 1984 (the Order 1984), to which presumption of truth is attached, cannot be discarded unless proved otherwise by convincing and cogent evidence. A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by mere fact that he produces it, therefore, in view of Article 134 of the Order , 1984, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
In view of the above, Constitutional Petition No(S). 43 of 2019 is dismissed accordingly .