' Rab Nawaz plaintiff brought a suit for the specific performance of a contractual agreement (pronote Annexure-C) dated 2-8-1992 against (1) Shah Hanif and (2) Murad Khan in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra.
2. During the trial of the aforesaid case the evidence of both the parties was recorded and closed on 9-5-1996 and 4-7-1996 respectively. After the closure of the aforesaid evidence Rab Nawaz petitioner realised that the marginal witness of the agreement dated 2-8-1992 (Annexure-C) had made concessions in favour of the defendants, therefore, he moved two applications one under Order 16, Rule 1(2), C.P.C. And another application under Order 19 of the C.P.C. Wherein he prayed that he may be allowed to adduce additional evidence for proving the fact that the signatures of defendants on Exh.D.W.2/1 and Exh.D,W.2/2 were correct as earlier they had denied to have signed the same. In his application under Order 16, Rule 1(2), C . P. C . Dated 4-7-1976 (Annexure-G) on the present file, he requested the trial Court for permission to produce the following evidence:-
1. Signatures specialist,
2. The Notary Public Mansehra,
3. Representative of M.C.B. To rebut the refusal of signatures made on certain documents by the defendants.
4. The file of a decided case by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Mansehra,
5. The power of attorney given to the counsel and some counter-phials cheques which he had issued to the defendants in connection with the payments made to them in the light of the transaction of the agreement dated 2-8-1992.
3. The learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Mansehra dismissed both the applications on 7-10-1996.
Feeling aggrieved Rabnawaz has preferred the present revision petition.
4. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. It is worth mentioning that the defendants had from the very beginning denied all the allegations alleged in the plaint against them in the written statement and also in their statements recorded by the trial Court. The evidence of both the parties have been closed and the case is ripe for decision when in the meantime these two present petitions have been moved by the petitioner by way of an after thought in order to prolong the litigation. To my view the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for the satisfaction of the trial Court as to why the relevant documents mentioned in his application were not produced at proper time. The contents of the application are not explicitly clear as the petitioner has not specifically mentioned the name and designation and the purpose of the witnesses whom he wanted to produce in rebuttal of the evidence of the defendants. Under Order 13, Rule 1, C.P.C. It is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to produce all the relevant documents on which he relies to be produced at the first hearing.
' If the party fails to do so the Court may not allow them to cure the deficiency at I B the later stage.
6. In the instant case D.W. Shah Hanif defendant, who is the special attorney of defendant No,2 Murad has denied the execution of the agreement dated 2-8-1992 and also the acceptance of the amount mentioned therein i.e, Rs,4,37,000. He also denies the acceptance of the payment through various' cheques issued by the petitioner. This total denial on the part of the defendants has prompted the petitioner to file the present two petitions at a belated stage in order to meet his deficiencies.
7. Suffice it to say that Exh.P.W.2/2 from page 21 of this file upto page 36 are the certified copies of some registered deeds which are already available on the file. These documents are public documents and under section 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat the execution of the same cannot be disputed. Under section 90 of the aforesaid Act presumption of genuineness is attached to these documents having been duly certified by a Government Officer. The Court is, therefore, duty bound to take judicial note of these documents under the relevant provisions of law. Besides at page 44 of the present file some receipts of cheque payments and counter portions of the cheque books have been placed. Most of these transactions pertain to the year 1991, whereas the agreement in question was to come into operation w.e.f, 2-8-1992 vide Exh.P.W.2/1. Yet another aspect which goes against the petitioner is that during the course of evidence the hostile witnesses were not confronted with the documents and facts which -the petitioner now wants to adduce as additional evidence.
8. To my observation no bona fide good cause has been shown by the petitioner to adduce additional evidence at a belated stage when the case awaits decision. Besides no grounds justifies the involvement of Order 19, C.P.C.
9. In revisional jurisdiction this Court only interferes in a matter where the subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise such a jurisdiction or has acted in excess of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The record suggests that none of the above quoted provisions have been violated by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.
10. With these observations the revision petition having no merit is dismissed with costs.