MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J. - Brief facts of the instant Civil Revision are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 1 kanal and 2 marlas khasra No. 908 situated in Hussain Khanwala Tehsil Kasur and prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. This suit was contested by the respondents/defendants Nazir Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad through written statement. The issues were formulated and the parties produced evidence and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4.6.1989. Appeal was preferred which is pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of appeal an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC was filed by the petitioner for production of a document Ex.C-I, the certified copy of decree of Civil Court by way of additional evidence. The same was resisted by the respondents through replication and the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 27.6.1990 dismissed the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. Instant Civil Revision challenges the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court refusing additional evidence.
2. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute. The judgment and decree dated 21.9.1986 was passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said land and copy of the said judgment and decree alongwith a compromise-deed dated 21.9.1986 was in possession of the counsel but due to rush of work he could not produce the same and get it exhibited; the said document being part of judicial record can be presented at any time with the permission of the Appellate Court; that the said documents having a material bearing on the merits of the case should be permitted through additional evidence in order to prove the substantial justice and this document is not produced to fulfil the lacuna and the learned Appellate Court has wrongly decided that there is no sufficient evidence available on record when there is evidence available on record and the document in question can advance the Appellate Court to pronounce the effective judgment and do the complete justice to the parties. He has relied on "Hassun, etc. Ur. Hussain" (PLJ 1996 Lahore 196), "Zar Wali Shah vs. Yousaf Ali Shah, etc." (1992 Law Notes (S.C.) 718) and "Mst. Hajan Nawab Bibi Ur. A.D.J., etc." (PLD 1993 Lahore 492).
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the stance taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner/appellant was in possession of the compromise-deed and the decree in suit filed against third party but he did not place the same in the list of reliance nor he produced the same through additional evidence before the learned Trial Court till his evidence concluded on 28.2.1989. The case remained adjourned for nearly a period of tv/ > years and he had sufficient opportunity to apply for the production of this document in additional evidence before the Trial Court. At this stage he cannot produce the same in additional evidence to fill the gap in the instant case. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is sufficient evidence to pronounce the effective judgment then there is no necessity of this document to be brought in additional evidence which is between the petitioner and the third party. He further submitted that the application for additional evidence does not fulfil the provision of Order 41, Rule 27, CPC and being not within the four comers of law has been rightly refused by the learned Trial Court as the discretion to allow the additional evidence is used in the interest of justice and not for the purpose and allow the check-up of a weak case. Inadvertence of the party or mistaken legal advice of the learned counsel does not furnish ground for production of additional evidence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The appeal on merits is still pending, the parties have already produced oral as well as documentary evidence Ex.P-1 to P-5 and Ex.D-1 to D-3. The document which is requested to be produced through additional evidence is a compromise-deed Ex.C-1 in case Ali Muhammad Vs. Rehmat Ali the disputed khasra number does exist in this document Ex.C-1 which is a part of judicial record and has direct bearing on the merits of the suit.
Provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, CPC reflect: -
(i) "That the additional evidence is allowed where the Trial Court has improperly refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted;
(ii) the Appellate Court requires such document or witness and cannot pronounce judgment without such additional evidence; or
(iii) the Appellate Court requires such evidence for any other substantial cause."
5. The settled proposition of law as laid down in "Mst. Amina Begum & others Vs. Mehar Ghulam Dastigir" (PLD 1978 S.C. 220)''is that Court has got inherent powers in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings to shorten litigation and to do complete justice between the parties and mould relief according to altered circumstances in larger interest of justice. This discretion is vested in the Court to judicially exercise the same. The Appellate Court will only allow additional evidence where it requires to give an effective judgment because a decree in suit accords with the rights of parties as they stand with the date of the institution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Zar Wali Shah Vs. Yousaf Ali Shah, etc." (1992 Law Notes (S.C.) 718) held that even if one or the other party had failed to produce all material documents and/or failed to request for proper examination of the disputed document/signatures, the Court had ample power to do the needful so as to advance justice rather than injustice. The concept of bar against filling the gap is no more available in the present Pakistan jurisprudence and the law, including the precedent law on Islamic principles which are being made applicable progressively to the proceedings before the Courts and other forums which are required to record/admit evidence. This judgment is relied in "Hassan, etc. Vs. Hussain" (PLJ 1996 Lahore 196).
6. The document which is requested to be placed in evidence is a part of judicial record and cannot be termed as discovery of fresh evidence at a later stage although an appeal is rehearing and the Appellate Court do not ordinarily record fresh evidence but there is no harm if the Court takes note of the document which is asked to be produced in additional evidence and if the document is a part of the judicial record and has a material bearing to the merits of the case. The Appellate Court can judicially exercise the discretion provided under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC to do complete justice to the parties after giving them an opportunity of full evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has put new dimensions to the production of additional evidence in respect of Islamic jurisprudence, therefore, I allow this Civil Revision and set aside the impugned judgment dated 27.6.1990 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kasur and allow the document to be admitted in additional evidence after giving a sufficient opportunity of rebuttal to the adverse party.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 29.4.1999.