MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J:- This revision petition arises out of a suit for possession through pre- emption filed by the respondent against the petitioner seeking to pre-empt the sale of land measuring 25 kanals 10 marlas situate in Mauza Patti Naich, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, which had been sold to the petitioner by registered deed of sale dated 6.2.1969. In the plaint superior right of pre-emption was claimed on the ground, that the respondent was co-sharer in the land, owner in the estate and collateral of the vendor.
2. This suit was contested by the petitioner which led to the framing of as many as 11 issues. Both the parties produced their evidence. The learned trial Court by means of its judgment and decree dated 10.6.1982 dismissed the suit Filed by the respondent, in view of its findings on issues No. 1, 2 and 3 which related to the questions of court-fee and limitation, and also issue No.4. Regarding superior right of pre-emption. An appeal was filed by the respondent before the learned District Judge Muzaffargarh which was heard by the Additional District Judge who vide its judgment and decree dated 7.12.1983 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the respondent. During the course of hearing of the appeal an application under Order 41 rule 27 C. P. C. For permission to produce additional evidence was made by the respondent which was granted by the learned Addl.
District Judge, who recorded the additional evidence and then passed the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel has straneously challenged the order dated 7.12.1983 allowing the respondent to produce additional evidence. The learned counsel submits that the parties had an ample opportunity of producing their evidence before the trial Court.However, the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence were not produced at that the. No explanation as to why these documents were with-held was forthcoming. According to the learned counsel, there was no justification for the Addl. District Judge to record any additional evidence.
The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Addl. District Judge as also the impugned decree.
4. I have considered the argument of the learned counsels. It is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 7.12.1983 that no sufficient reasons for allowing additional evidence were given by the learned Addl. District Judge. The provisions of order XL1 rule 27 require in no uncertain terms, that the Court allowing production of additional evidence, shall record its reasons for doing so. Mere re- production of the words of the rule are not enough, which appears to have been done by the learned Addl. District Judge. Reference may be made to Muhammad Ikhlas & others Versus Muhammad Ismail (PLD 1963 S.C. 466) with advantage. Further more, before the additional evidence could be allowed, the learned Addl. District Judge was under an obligation to have first considered the evidence produced by the parties and then decide as to whether the evidence on record was sufficient to enable it to pronounce judgment or not. Without having perused the evidence already produced by the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge could not have decided the application under Order XLI rule 27 C. P. C. It is, therefore, quite evident that the application under Order XLI rule 27 CPC has not been decided in accordance with law by the Addl. District Judge. In view of what has been stated above, this revision petition is accepted, the order dated 7.12.83 as also the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Distirct Judge are set aside.
The appeal as well as the application for additional evidence are remanded to him for redetermination in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge; Muzaffargarh on 14th of December, 1988, who shall either hear the appeal himself or entrust the same to any other Additional District Judge.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.