' The facts giving rise to this writ petition in brief, are that Mst. Zaiban, respondent, filed a suit for possession through preemption against Walya. Petitioner, and Muhammad Aslam, respondent No,
2. The petitioner contested the suit and denied the superior right of Mst. Zaiban, plaintiff. The issues were framed. But before the evidence could be recorded, Mst. Zaiban moved application seeking permission to place on record Shajranasab. This application was resisted but the trial Court allowed the same on 11-5-1982. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner herein, moved revision before the learned District Judge, Shahiwal, which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge who vide his order, dated 11-12-1982 dismissed the same. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application, dated 11-5-1982 for permission to file the document does not show under L what provisions of law the same was moved ; that the document i,e, Shajranasab ought to have been field with the plaint and no explanation whatsoever has been given for delay in filing the document and that the reasons given by the learned Courts below are not cogent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that it was within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to grant permission to file documents after the institution of the suit and that the trial Court has given reasons for allowing application. Furthermore, the learned Additional District Judge had authority to accept or reject the appeal. He has also applied his mind to the facts of the case and has given reasons in support of his order. In the case in hand I find that by 11-5-1982 when the application for permission to file document was moved the evidence had not been recorded and as such it cannot be said that the application was given at belated stage of the proceedings. In the circumstances of the case the document is important one and the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer. The learned Additional District Judge has also rightly dismissed the revision.
4. For what has been stated above it cannot be said that the impugned orders of the Courts below are without lawful authority. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.