' Through the present revision petition an interim order dated 10-12-10Q2 passed by the trial Court- has been brought under challenge. By the said order, Mr. Muhammad Jehangir Kanth, Civil Judge, Lahore had rejected an application under section 151, C.P.C., filed by Fazal Karim and Muhammad Hanif, defendants in a suit, for possession of 10 Marlas of land, in Shabnam Colony, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, for deexhibiting documents tendered in evidence by the learned counsel for Surayya Tabassum plaintiff, as Exhs.P4 to 19.
2. The defendants' plea was that some of the documents were never relied upon by the plaintiff and could well have been manufactured in the course of the proceedings, and especially when those were produced in their absence, a great prejudice had been caused to their interests. It is however to be noted that the documents were exhibited in the statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, on 9-10-1988 and a request for deexhibiting the documents was made with a delay of about three and a half years on 26-5-1992. The defendants' contention was controverted by the plaintiff's counsel by submitting that the documents had never been objected to by the counsel for the defendants, at the time, when the same were being tendered in evidence, and the defendants would therefore be debarred from raising an objection against admissibility of the documents, particularly when the objection was being raised several years afterwards. It was pointed out that the documents had largely been relied upon, and Fazal Karim defendant had produced his evidence, after the plaintiff had closed her evidence, and it has occurred to the applicant (Fazal Karim defendant) too late in the day that there had taken place a development, in the course of the proceedings of the suit, to the prejudice of his rights. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff impressed the learned trial Judge, who proceeded to dismiss the above- said application, made by the other side, by the impugned order, dated 10-12-1992.
3. There is no denying the fact that on 9-10-1988, when the documents in question were being exhibited, learned counsel for the defendants too was present and his presence was to be considered to be sufficient representation of the defendants, who could not possibly disown an act of their counsel on a I particular date, when, throughout, the same learned counsel had been representing them. It cannot also be disputed that the defendants had led their evidence after the impugned incidence; and from that it would follow that the defendants had by their conduct conceded to and not objected to reception of the disputed documents in the plaintiffs evidence.
Now that the case is ripe for decision, the defendant-petitioner cannot be permitted to take up an objection, which he was at liberty to have raised at the proper time. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on 6 M.I.A. 232, Rajah Bommarauze Bahadur &c. v. Ranga Samy Mudaly, a Judicial Committee's authority of the year 1855, in which it has been held that if a material witness of the plaintiff is examined, in absence of the defendant, his Vakil having been removed and no other Vakil having been acting for the defendant, at the relevant time, it would constitute an irregularity, which, if objected to at the proper time, would be fatal to the reception of such evidence. It is to be noted that in the present case the defendants were represented by the same counsel, as already said, and he had not withdrawn from the case, nor had he been disengaged by the defendants. He was very much present on the occasion and had taken part in the proceedings. Again, exception to reception of a particular piece of evidence has to be taken at the proper time. C This was not done, in the instant case; and the objection was raised a little over 3-1/2 years after the documents had been duly received and exhibited in evidence.
4. The learned lower Court has also rightly observed that the Court will evaluate the worth of each and every document, at the time of appraisal of the evidence on record, and while arriving at a conclusion respecting the correctness of stand-point of a party to the litigation. In the course of final arguments, it will be open to the learned counsel for the defendants to question authenticity or reliability of the documents, which, according to them, are not trustworthy, or interpretation of which admits of a sense or meaning different from the one being put on by the plaintiff. Most of the documents, it may be pointed out, are copies of judicial orders, genuineness of which is not open to any doubt.
5. Revisional jurisdiction of Court has a limited scope and has not to be exercised in a reckless or wanton manner. In passing the impugned order the learned trial Court does not appear to have committed any material irregularity, entailing miscarriage of justice. This Court therefore does not find itself inclined to interfere with the said order. The civil revision has no merit and is hereby dismissed in limine..