' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---On 29-11-1986 the respondents brought a suit inter alia for possession of certain properties and cancellation of a partition deed. The suit was resisted by the petitioner who filed his written statement on 29-10-1987. The trial Court framed a number of issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and called upon them to lead their evidence. The respondents concluded their evidence on 5-3-1988. The trial Court then fixed 27-3-1988 as the date for recording the evidence of the petitioner. On this date the petitioner wanted to introduce about 80 documents in evidence. This was objected to by the respondents on the ground that these had neither been produced nor relied upon earlier. The learned trial Court upheld the objection with the observation inter alia that the introduction of the said documents at that stage would prejudice the case of the respondents. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the trial Court but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Under Rule 2 of Order XIII, Civil Procedure Code, no documentary evidence in possession or power of a party which should have been but has not been produced at the first hearing of a suit can be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof.
3. In support of this petition the learned counsel contends that the provisions of this rule are to be construed liberally and in support of his contention he has referred to Iqbal Ahmad v. Khurshid Ahmad 1987 SCM R 744, Umar Hayat v. Naik Alam PLD 1977 Azad J&K 78 and Miss Rakhshanda Aslam v. Nomination Board of Azad Jammu & Kashmir PLD 1985 Azad J&K 41.
4. There is no satisfactory explanation given by the petitioner why he did not produce the documents at the first date of hearing of the suit. On the other hand, there is a finding by the trial Court that the introduction of the documents at the stage that they were being produced would prejudice the case of the opposite side. In the face of this finding the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner become distinguishable and it cannot be said that in refusing to receive the documents, the trial Court had acted arbitrarily. Since no principle of law has been violated by the trial Court, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.