A suit for declaration by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner against Mian Abdul Qayyum respondent and an ejectment petition filed by the aforesaid respondent against Chiragh Muhammad i.e. Predecessor--in-interest of the present petitioner were pending consolidated trial before the learned Court below. The issues in the case were framed on 16-10-1995. The parties had completed their evidence except the rebuttal evidence of the present petitioner/plaintiff. A petition for additional evidence was presented after the completion of the evidence of the respondent Mian Abdul Qayyum. It was prayed in the petition that following additional evidence be allowed to be examined in rebuttal :-- (1)Handwriting Expert, (2)Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chohan, Advocate, (3)Local Commissioner who had recorded the statement of Muhammad Tufail.
The aforesaid evidence was necessitated as the respondents aforenamed had denied his signatures on the power of attorney allegedly executed in favour of Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chohan, Advocate and also his Urdu signatures affixed on affidavit Mark "K" and on the proceedings before the Local Commissioner. The petition was contested by the respondent Abdul Qayyum on the ground that it was moved with the object of delaying the case although there was no necessity of examining such evidence. In this regard, it was contended that the disputed signatures were available when the petitioner had examined his evidence in affirmative; and that if the petitioner was actually interested in getting the signatures of the aforesaid respondent compared, he could move an application earlier at the appropriate stage instead of waiting till the evidence was concluded. Lastly, it was submitted that petition was moved with the object of frustrating the order of the High Court, whereby, a direction for its early disposal was made and the case yeas being taken up from day-to-day. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order, dated 14-3-1998 came to the conclusion that the petition was moved at a very belated stage and should have been filed well in time. It was accordingly dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed a revision petition to challenge the order of the learned trial Court which too was dismissed vide order, dated 14-9-1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
It was observed by the learned Revisional Court that the proposed evidence could be examined at the stage when the evidence was produced by the petitioner to prove the issues of which the onus was on him. The evidence in question had not arisen abruptly so as to ask for its examination at a belated stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the Courts below had committed gross error in disallowing the additional evidence by advancing sketchy reasons; the mere fact that the application was moved at the belated stage could not prevent a party to produce or examine evidence which was necessary for the fair disposal of the case; the procedural technicalities should not be allowed to knock out the merits of the case if otherwise it could be achieved by examining the relevant evidence. Though the speedy disposal of the cases is appreciable but it should not be at the expense of the ends of justice. It is further submitted that all possible efforts should be made to give maximum opportunity to the parties to bring on record all material evidence for the disposal of the case on its merits so that substantive justice may be done between the parties irrespective of any direction passed by any superior Court, as such undue haste should always be avoided. Reliance was placed on 1994 CLC 951 (Lahore), 1994 CLC 1516 (Karachi), PLD 1995 Lah. 85, 1995 CLC 531 (Peshawar), PLD 1994 Kar. 474, 1992 CLC 1450 (Lahore) and 1990 CLC 664 (Lahore). Finally, it was vehemently urged that the material documents should be allowed to be proved according to the procedure and the Courts should be liberal to allow the production and proof of such documents.
4.I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that in the instant case both the Courts below had given a concurrent finding whereby, it was held that the evidence in question could be produced at some early stage for which the petitioner had ample opportunity. The discretion exercised by the Courts below cannot be successfully substituted in the writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it has not been pointed out in the petition for additional evidence as to how it will promote the ends of justice if the evidence in question is brought on record. A It is well-understood that though the material evidence should be allowed to be brought on record but if a belated request is made for its production, it should be thoroughly examined by the Courts in order to see that the party concerned is not indolent, and that if documents are not allowed to be produced at the trial, there would be the failure of justice. Hence, the objective of allowing belated or additional evidence should be to promote the ends of justice and not to extend any premium or edge to one party over the other. In the instant case, there is no explanation in the petition for additional evidence as to why those documents or evidence was not examined at the appropriate stage or how the non-production of that evidence would result into the failure of justice. As such, the concurrent 8 finding of the learned Courts below refusing the additional evidence to the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality, so as to invoke the extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
5.The writ petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.