' The above-noted petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed by Sub-Judge, Mirpur on May 3, 1994, whereby copy of `Misl-e-Haqiyar for village Bandral, Tehsil and District Mirpur and copy of `Khasra Girdawari' pertaining to certain Survey Numbers including Survey No,1153 were allowed ,to be tendered in evidence and got exhibited.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the controversy involved, may be noted as under.
3. Khalid Hussain, plaintiff-non-petitioner brought a suit for possession in the Court of Sub-Judge, Mirpur on August 26? 1992 in respect of land, measuring 18 Marlas under Survey Number 2339 (old) which in the recent settlement, has been given new Survey, Number as 1153. Along with the suit, he filed copy of `Khatooni'. He pleaded in the suit that the land in dispute was given to the father of non-petitioner No,1 temporarily for residential purpose who had promised that he would return the possession of the same to the plaintiff-non-petitioner as and when Mirpur Development Authority allots him a plot.
4. This suit was contested by defendant-petitioner. On July 18, 1993, in the light of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Sub-Judge found the parties at variance on different questions of fact and law and framed as many as eight issues. The plaintiff/non-petitioner was asked to begin with his evidence first.
5. It is pertinent to observe here that plaintiff in this case, on September 15, 1993, applied to the trial Court for the summoning of Patwari along with register pertaining to `Misl-e-Haqiyaf for the year 1991-92 and register of `Khasragirdawarr from 1983 up to date. The Patwari witness, in compliance with the process of the Court, appeared before the trial Court on May 3, 1994 when his statement was partly recorded. He, during the course of his statements, produced copy of `Misl-e-Haqiyat'
Exh.PA, pertaining to the year 1991-92 in respect of land falling under Survey Numbers 2339 (old) and 1153 (new) measuring 18 Marlas and `Khasra Girdawari' Exh.PB for the year 1992-93 in respect of landed property under various survey numbers including Survey Number 1153 which were got exhibited by the plaintiff/non-petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that as revenue record was not produced in the Court at the first hearing of the suit and no sufficient cause, whatsoever, was shown for ; its late production, the trial Court has committed error in law in allowing test.. Documents to be tendered in evidence and got exhibited at the stage of evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition, has argued that under Order 7, Rule 14, C.P.C. The plaintiff-non-petitioner was duty bound to produce all those documents with the plaint which were in his possession or power on which he was going to rely. In the present case, no explanation, whatsoever, was given by the plaintiff-non-petitioner as to why he had not obtained the copies of 'Khasra Girdawari' and produced the same along with the plaint at the first hearing of his suit.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the impugned order. According to him, the record was not available with the plaintiff-non-petitioner. It was available with Patwari who was cited as a witness and through whom the plaintiff-non-petitioner had disclosed his intention to produce the same in the trial Court for the just decision of the controversy at issue.
8. I have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.
9. In the present case admittedly the record which was tendered in evidence was available with Patwari. It could have been in the possession of the petitioner only if he would have obtained certified copies of the same. It is not . Proved that actually the plaintiff had obtained these copies which he had failed to produce at the first hearing of the suit. From the language used in Order 7, Rule 14 and Order 13, Rule 1, C.P.C., it becomes crystal clear that the object behind these provisions of procedural law is to obviate the possibility of the parties presenting forged documents at late stage of the litigation when the points at issue stand formulated.
10. In the present case, apparently the Revenue Record relating to the land in question has been tendered in evidence and got exhibited. Keeping in view the controversy at issue, I think, this record was essential for the just decision of the case and could have been allowed to be tendered in evidence at any stage of proceedings. Keeping in view the language used in Order 7, Rule 14 or Order 13, Rule 1, C.P.C., I think that the bar contained in these provisions is not absolute. It is clear from Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C. That Courts of law are permitted to exercise their discretion to meet the ends of justice and allow such documents to be brought on record in proper cases which the parties have failed to produce at the first hearing of the suits. However, the law demands that the trial Court should apply its mind properly and give its reasonings if any document is allowed to be tendered in evidence at a late stage. This Court in revisions can interfere only if it is disclosed that the order under challenge has been passed arbitrarily, capriciously and by ignoring the recognised judicial principles of law in this regard.
11. In the present case, in my opinion, the trial Court has exercised its discretion rightly and thus has committed no error in law while passing the impugned order.
12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner has relied on a case titled Abdus Samad v.
Zaidullah (PLD 1959 Azad J&K 16), wherein it has been opined that no revision shall lie against an interlocutory order admitting certain documents in evidence even if it be held that such admission was improper and illegal. I agree with this proposition of law on the ground that if any important documents, especially the public record is not allowed to be brought on record, the case in appeal, might have been remanded for taking evidence afresh in respect of these documents which have been improperly not allowed to be brought on record. This practice may cause unnecessary delay and expenses for which this Court may interfere but if any document is allowed to be tendered in evidence by the trial Court, the appellate Court if comes to the conclusion that the documents should have not been allowed to be admitted into evidence could record its own reasonings adverse to its admissibility and ignore the same while recording judicial verdict in respect of points at issue. Therefore, the admission of any documents by the trial Court is subject to, scrutiny on objection by the appellate Court. Therefore, the party aggrieved, must get objections registered before the trial Court and should not indulge in filing revision petitions against the admissibility of public documents.
13. The revision petition, in the light of the above observations, is without force which stands dismissed with costs.