' The petition is addressed against the order of learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mirpur, passed on 15th October, 1989, whereby he allowed plaintiff-respondent to produce original agreement in evidence.
2. Lal Din brought a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of land comprising survey Nos. 1245, 1249 and 1256, situate in village Sonkiah, Tehsil Mirpur. It was averred that the plaintiff was owner of the suit land. He delivered possession of the land to Muhammad Azam and Munir Hussain for its use as Bricks Kiln, on lease for a period of five years. The period of lease was to expire in July-August, 1980.
The suit was resisted by the defendant-petitioners who disputed the ground of period of lease by stating that the lease was executed for indefinite period. The trial Court framed issues on 22nd November, 1980. The issue relating to indefinite period was to be proved by the defendant- petitioners. The defendants were ordered to lead their evidence first. The proceedings were at the stage of evidence of defendants when an application for amendment of the suit was moved wherein it was averred that the plaintiff occupied the suit land during the pendency of the suit. The amendment was allowed and an additional issue was framed on 18th November, 1982. On framing of additional issue, the learned Additional Sub-Judge ordered the plaintiff to lead his evidence. In compliance with the order of the Court, the plaintiff produced evidence whereafter the defendants also produced evidence.
3. The plaintiff appended a photostat copy of the lease deed but later on, moved an application that the original lease deed was lost and a report was made to the police to that effect. Later on when the evidence of plaintiff was to be led in rebuttal on issues Nos.1 and 3, the original lease deed was placed on the file. This was objected to by the defendant-petitioners. The trial Court overruled the objection and allowed production of the document. This order is the subject of present revision petition.
4. Mr. M.Y. Arvi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiff deliberately suppressed the document at the earliest stage and thereby omitted to produce it with his pleadings or at the stage of framing of issues. In the circumstances, it was argued that the document could not be produced at a very late stage when the evidence of the plaintiff was already closed. Agha Ashiq Hussain, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent explained that the plaintiff in his pleadings took a definite stand about the period of lease and appended a photostat copy of the deed with the pleadings. Later on, the original document was lost, as such it could not be produced at the time of framing of issues or evidence led earlier by the plaintiff. The learned Counsel referred to the application moved on behalf of the plaintiff at the relevant time.
5. Rule 14, Order 7, C.P.C. Postulates that where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. It further lays down that where the plaintiff relies on any other documents, whether in his possession or not, as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in the list annexed to the plaint. In the present case, the agreement deed in question was though not produced before the Court, a photostat copy of the same was appended with the plaint and it is still on the record. There is an application of the plaintiff showing thereby that the original deed of lease was lost and a report was made to the police to that effect. The document was produced at a later stage which was opposed by the defendants. It appears from the aforesaid circumstances that the plaintiff described the document in his pleadings and also mentioned the requisite period for which the lease was given by him. The contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff finds support from the record. It is, therefore, reasonable to condone the omission of the plaintiff-respondents in the light of the aforesaid position.
6. Rule 18(1), Order 7, C.P.C. Further lays down that the document which ought to have been produced at the time of presentation of plaint, when not produced before the Court, was not acceptable or receivable in evidence at the hearing of the suit. The restriction laid down under Rule 18(1) was not an absolute rule as in exceptional circumstances when the omission to produce the document was explained satisfactorily, it was within the discretion of the Court to receive the document in evidence. This power of the Court is purely discretionary. In the present case, the learned Additional Sub-Judge decided to receive the document in evidence in exercise of his discretionary power. The discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sub-Judge does not seem to be perverse as the circumstances described above, fully justify the omission of the plaintiff to produce the document at the relevant stage.
' There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. It is, therefore, sustained. The petition is disposed of accordingly.