' This case has a chequered history. Ejectment application was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in the year 1979, which was resisted by the respondent namely, Abdul Hameed on the ground of lack of relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 29-3-1981 dismissed the ejectment application. Against the above order, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which remained pending for very long time and ultimately decided on 2-7- 1998.
2. During the above period, the respondent applied to the Administrator (Residual Property), Lahore, for allotment of the disputed property, which application was dismissed on 24-2-1981. The respondent preferred a writ petition being W.P. No,218-R of 1981, against the above order, which too was dismissed by this Court on 24-7-1997. It is thereafter that the appeal was taken up for hearing by the Court in appeal. Before the Appellate Court the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners took up the plea that he is owner of the property and as finally adjudged by the order of this Court vide order dated 24-7-1997 in the aforementioned writ petition, as well as, on the basis of earlier transfer order by the Settlement Department in his favour, there is no cause for the respondent to deny his title.
3. Conversely, the respondent produced a judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 2-6-1987, whereby his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell qua the said property has been allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that this document was not part of the evidence and could not be looked into by the Court in appeal, until and unless the requirements of additional evidence were fulfilled. The learned counsel on the contrary has stated that he has brought this fact to the notice of the Court in appeal and the judgment and decree was placed on record, thus, the Court has taken into consideration and decided the fate of the case correctly.
5. I am afraid that this is not the legal position. If the parties wanted any further material to be brought on record as a part of the evidence for determination of lis, the proper course is to have filed an application for bringing on record such documents as additional evidence. This has not been done in the present case and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners a serious prejudice has been caused to them. I concur with the contention of the learned counsel.
6. In view of the above, this writ petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the petitioners would be deemed to be pending before the Court in appeal. The parties shall be at liberty to apply to the Court in appeal for production of additional evidence, which shall be decided in accordance with law. As the matter has been lingering on since very long the Court in appeal is directed to finally dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of representation of the parties before it.