This revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration filed by Mst. Taj Bibi, respondent No.l on 9-2- 1985 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Kasur claiming ownership of land measuring 87 Kanals 9 Marlas situated in Mauza Nooriwala, Tehsil and District Kasur. The claim was based upon a gift deed Exh. P.1 dated 2-7-1967 skid to have been made in her favour by her father. She also challenged the legality of mutation inheritance No. 369 attested on 9-12-1956 in favour of the petitioner. The suit was resisted by the petitioner who filed his written statement in the Court which gave rise to the following issues:--
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is within time? OPP
(5) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is correct valuation? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is based on collusion with plaintiff and defendant No. 10? OPD
(7) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and as such the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A of the C.P.C.? OPD
(8) Whether the impugned mutations of inheritance No. 423 dated 15-6-1958, No. 369 dated 6-12- 1956 and No. 547 dated 12-5-1969 are illegal, against facts and being void are in-affective as against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP .
(8-A) Whether the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit property on account of impugned HIBA? OPP
(9) Relief.
2. After recording evidence of the parties and perusing the same the trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27-2-1991. The present petitioner filed an appeal on 10-3-1991 before the District Judge, Kasur which was entrusted to the Additional District Judge for disposal.
During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41, rule 27 of the C.P.C. for production of the certified copy of the order dated 27-11-1958 passed by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, Collector, Kasur, by way of additional evidence. The said applications was rejected by the appellate Court vide the order dated 4-11-1992.
3. The petitioner's learned counsel submits that order dated 27-11-1958 passed by the Collector on the revision petition filed by Mst. Taj Bibi, respondent No.l relates to the validity of Mutation No. 369 dated 6-12-1956 made in favour of the petitioner which has been attacked in the suit. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the said order passed by the Collector has a direct bearing on the fate of the suit. In support of his contentions that additional evidence can be allowed at any stage the learned counsel places reliance on the following judgments:--
(i) Mst. Fazal Jan v. Roshan Din and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 811).
(ii) Zar Wali Shah v. Yousuf Ali Shah and 9 others (1992 SCM R 1778).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents urged with reference to the photo copy of the document sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, that the same was not relatable to the present dispute or the parties. According to him the order dated 27-11-1958 merely reads as under:- In reply, the respondents' learned counsel pointed out that the photo copy produced by the respondents' learned counsel consists of one leaf while the certified copy produced by the petitioners before the learned District Judge consisted of two leaves containing full particulars of Mst. Taj Bibi, respondent No.l as well as a reference to the disputed Mutation No. 369. On his request the petitioners' learned counsel was allowed time to place certified copy of the document on the record. He produced the documents in the Court which clearly supports his contentions.
5. A Court can allow additional evidence under the provisions of Order XLI, rule 27 of the C.P.C. to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Since the document sought to be produced by way of additional evidence will have a bearing on the question of limitation in filing the suit, it is definitely required for the purposes of pronouncing judgment and A the appellate Court ought to have allowed its production. The consideration that a party could not be allowed to fill up gaps left in its case is no longer relevant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zar Wali Shah v, Yousuf Ali Shah and 9 others (1992 SCM R 1778). The mere fact that a case was badly conducted and that some omissions were left in the evidence cannot debar the Court from allowing additional evidence as held in the case of Mst. Fazal Jan v. Roshan Din and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 811).
5. Therefore, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioners' application for production of additional evidence is allowed. The appellate Court shall allow the respondent to produce evidence in rebuttal. The parties are left to bear their own costs.