ALI BAIG, CJ. Through the instant writ petition filed under Art. 86(2) of the Government of Gilgit- Baltistan Order, 2018, the petitioner has called in question the validity and propriety of the impugned judgment/order dated 03 05.2023 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit in Civil Revision No. 20/2021, whereby the learned Addl. District judge Gilgit has allowed the revision petition of the present respondent No.1/plaintiff by setting aside the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gilgit.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case leading to filing the instant writ petition are that the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff had instituted a civil suit in the trial Court for declaration with the contention that the present petitioner/defendant No.1 is legally bound to transfer the suit land, fully described in the head note of plaint, in the name of the present respondent No.1/plaintiff in revenue record on the basis of agreement deed 11.03.2013.
3. The present petitioner/defendant No.1 being contesting defendant in the suit contested the suit by way of filing her written statement, wherein she has repudiated the plea/claim of the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff and raised certain legal and factual objections.
4. During trial of case, the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff had produced attested copies of cheques of Karakoram Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kashrote Branch which were issued in the name of the present petitioner by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 through an application filed under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The copies of said cheques were attested by the Manager Operation of the aforesaid bank, but the learned trial Court refused to exhibit the attested copies of aforesaid cheques and has passed the impugned order dated 28.10.2023.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court, the present respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a civil revision petition before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit. The learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has allowed the civil revision petition of the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff by setting aside the order dated 28.10.2021 of the learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment/order dated 03.05.2023.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order of the learned Addl.
District Judge, Gilgit, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 argued that the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit is against the law and facts on the record of the case, hence the same is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 further argued that there is no law to exhibit documentary evidence at the stage of rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff as such the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit has misconceived the law and facts of the case, hence the impugned judgment/ order is not maintainable in the eye of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 further argued that the learned Addl. District Judge,. Gilgit has failed to appreciate the most important legal fact involved in the case, hence the impugned judgment/order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 further argued that the impugned judgment/order of learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit is based on suppositions and conjectures, as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 further argued that the respondent No.1/plaintiff cannot produce any documentary evidence at belated stage of proceedings, but the learned Addl.
District Judge, Gilgit has overlooked this legal proposition and passed the impugned judgment/order which is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 has prayed that the impugned judgment/order of the learned Addl.
District Judge, Gilgit may be set aside by maintaining the order of the learned trial Court.
8. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and supported the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit, by arguing that the attested copies of cheques are necessary documents to arrive at a just conclusion and any party can produce documentary evidence at any stage of proceedings which is relevant/necessary to the case, hence the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit has rightly passed the impugned judgment/order. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff further contended that the copies of cheques have been duly attested by the concerned bank officer and he has also deposed before the Court in support of cheques, as such there is no bar in law to exhibit the copies of said documents/cheques. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff further contended that the copies of documents/cheques are important piece of evidence which would help the trial Court to arrive at just and correct conclusion. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff further contended that the impugned judgment/order is well reasoned and result of correct appreciation and application of law, which need not any interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction, as such the revision petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the record of the case.
10. From perusal of record it transpires that during trial of the case before the trial Court, the present respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed an application under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. for production of the disputed cheques in the trial Court. The learned trial Court after obtaining replication from the present petitioner/defendant No.1 and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, had allowed the aforesaid application filed under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. and the present respondent No.1/plaintiff was allowed to produce the disputed cheques in the trial Court, vide order dated 29.10.2019. The present petitioner/defendant No.1 has not challenged the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court before the appellate forum which has attained finality, hence the petitioner/defendant No.1 is estopped by her conduct and admission to challenge the said order at this belated stage. Moreover, there is no any bar in law to exhibit the already produced documents at the time of recording of rebuttal evidence.
11. The Manager Operation, KCBL Kashrote Branch namely Sharafat Din who had attested the disputed cheques had already appeared before the trial Court and his statement has also been recorded by the learned trial Court. The above named PW has also owned the disputed cheques in his statement recorded by the learned trial Court stating therein that the original cheques are lying in the concerned bank. Hence. I have come to the conclusion that that the learned trial Court has erred in law by refusing to exhibit the disputed cheques while recording rebuttal evidence and the learned revisional Court has rightly set aside the order of the learned trial Court while accepting the revision petition of the present respondent No.1/plaintiff allowing the respondent No.1 to exhibit the disputed cheques, vide impugned judgment dated 03.05.2023 as the disputed cheques will help the learned trial Coutt to arrive at correct and just conclusion.
12. The learned lower revisional Court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned judgment/order warranting interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment/order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit is upheld. Parties are left to bear their own costs file.