Through this Constitutional petition, Fida Hussain, plaintiff, of a civil suit for specific performance of the contract filed against Mst. Jannat Bibi and Barkat Ali Shah respondents No. 3 and 4, has challenged en order dated 25-7-1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge, allowing the application for grant of permission to file documents and list of reliance, and upheld by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, respondent No. l vide order dated 5-9-1992, passed in revision filed by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner filed a suit seeking specific performance of the contract relating to land measuring 100 Kanals situate in Chak No.7 Thal Janubi No.2, Tehsil and District Jhang, on the basis of an agreement for sale allegedly executed by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 who are the owners of the land referred to above. This suit has been contested by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 on the grounds that they never agreed to sell the land in question to the petitioner and that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the suit, therefore, the suit may be dismissed. During the pendency of the suit which is stated to have been filed on 21-10-1990, and wherein evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner is stated to have been closed, and evidence of the respondents is yet to be recorded, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed an application before the learned trial Court, seeking permission to file a list of reliance and documents in support of their case, on 7-7-1992. It is mentioned in the application that during the pendency of the suit another suit filed by the petitioner has since been decided and, therefore, it is necessary that a copy of the plaint as well as the decision of the suit may be produced in Court and therefore filing of a reliance alongwith the said documents have been necessitated. This application was resisted- by the petition on the ground that the documents have not been relied upon and have also not been mentioned in the written statement and even otherwise are irrelevant for the purpose of decision of the suit, therefore the application cannot be allowed.
3. Learned Civil Judge 2nd Class, Jhang vide order dated, 25-7-1992 accepted the application holding that the documents sought to be produced are relatable to the agreement in question which is a matter in issue and therefore if they are placed on record of the case, in view of the chance of rebuttal to the petitioner, no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner. The application, whoever, was allowed subject to payment of Rs.200 as cost as being delayed.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed civil revision in the District Court of lhang, which has been dismissed in limine by learned Additional District Judge, Jhang vide order dated 5-9- 1992. Learned Civil Judge has held that as granting of permission is purely a matter of discretion vested with the learned trial Court who has exercised the discretion rightly and justifiably, therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. Resultantly, the revision petition has been dismissed as its scope being very limited. Both the orders referred to above passed by the two learned Courts below, respondents Nos.l and 2, have been challenged in this writ petition.
5. Mr. Taki Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the two learned Courts below did not have the jurisdiction to grant the permission for placing on record the documents referred to above as well as the list of reliance. Exact argument of the learned counsel is that the documents were never mentioned in the written statement nor in the list of reliance, therefore, the Courts below could not have granted the permission, consequently according to the learned counsel documents sought to be produced in evidence are irrelevant and have, no bearing on the matter in issue, therefore, two learned Courts below did not have the jurisdiction to allow, the application filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 which even otherwise was delayed. Learned counsel has admitted that the respondents have yet to lead evidence.
6.I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admitted legal position is that the learned trial Court has the jurisdiction to grant permission to place on record additional documents as well as to allow the production of a list of reliance. Law favours adjudication on merits and procedural technicalities cannot be allowed to stand in the way of administration of justice. In the case in hand, certified copies of the public record havebeen allowed to be placed on record. List of reliance is a consequential document. One of such documents i.e. the decision of the suit by the petitioner has come into existence during the pendency of the suit, therefore, it was not possible for the respondents Nos.3 and 4 to have appended or mentioned this document in the written statement or to have relied upon it. Copy of the plaint is in fact is necessary to be seen if the judgment referred to above is to be interpreted and applied to the facts of the case. This copy is also a copy of the public record. Learned trial Court rightly exercised the discretion in accepting the application and the order passed by the learned trial Court is lawful, fair and just. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the legal objections in relation to the admissibility and relevancy of the document when they will be produced in evidence. He shall have right to produce evidence in rebuttal. Discretionary order passed by the learned trial Court has not been interfered by the revisional Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. I do not find that the order passed by the revisional Court is either perverse or fanciful. In exercise of the writ jihisdiction which alms at challenging interim just order which has been passed by the trial Court in its discretionary jurisdiction and which has not been interfered with by a revisional Court in exercise' of discretionary jurisdiction, this Court does not interfere in view of the established legal position that the Constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised where the Court below have exercised their jurisdiction and discretion judiciously, particularly, when the writ petition is filed against an interim order inasmuch as entertainment of writ petition against interim orders results in delay of disposal of cases pending before the lower Court. Moreover, this writ petition arises out of an interim order passed by a Civil Judge pendente lite a civil suit and therefore the present writ petition, even otherwise is barred in view of the law laid down in case of Ghulam Hussain and another v. Malik Shahbaz Khan and another (1985 SCM R 1925). Resultantly, this writ petition has no force, the same is dismissed in limine.