SAVED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. -- The petitioner filed suit for preemption on the grounds stated in the plaint which suit was contested by the respondents/defendants. The learned Trial Court framed issues in the year, 1991. The parties had availed opportunity to produce and lead their evidence. At a belated stage, the petitioner/plaintiff thought of making an. Application for summoning a Registry Clerk of the Post Office Deptt. In Support of the issue No. 4. This application was made on 20.3.1994. The same was contested by the respondents/defendants and was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 17.4.1994 by recapitulating the previous stages of the suit, the opportunity available to the petitioner/plaintiff and treating the same as a belated, it was dismissed. Thereafter, the suit has also been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 8.6.1994.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff has tiled an appeal against the judgment of the learned Trial Court which appeal is pending before the learned Addl. District Judge, Bahawalnagar. There again, an application has been made under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC for permission to produce the Registry Clerk of the Post Office Department whose evidence, according to the petitioner is material on the point that the requirements of Talb-e- Muwasihat were complied with. The said application was contested by the respondents/defendants and was eventually dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide order dated 24.10.1997. Hence this revision' petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in order to dislodge the findings of the learned Trial Court on the point that the petitioner/plaintiff had not fulfilled the requirements of Talh-e-Muwasibat; the evidence of Registry Clerk of the Post Office Deptt., was necessary and the permission for his production has been illegally declined by the Addl. District Judge, Bahawalnagar. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner/plaintiff had ample opportunity and time to produce the said witness before the learned Trial Court, as in the written statement specific objection was raised as to the non-compliance of Talb-e-Muwasibat and an issue had been framed thereon. An application was made at a belated stage which was rejected by the learned Trial Court on 17.4.1994 and the said order was not challenged any more by the petitioner/plaintiff. It is further contended that the application before the learned Appellate Court was aimed at to filling of the lacunae in the case which has rightly been rejected by the learned Appellate Court.
4. There is no denying the fact that in the written statement, filed by the respondents/defendants, an objection was raised as to the noncompliance with the conditions of Talh-e-Muwasibat and issue was also framed by the learned Trial Court accordingly. The petitioner/plaintiff had ample opportunity to lead evidence in support of his assertion and he did produce number of witnesses.
However, no reason whatsoever has been given at any stage as to why if the testimony of Registry Clerk of Post Office Deptt. Was considered important and necessary by the petitioner/plaintiff, his name was not included in the list of witnesses to be produced by him or any attempt was made for his summoning/production at the appropriate stage. The application, filed by him at the conclusion of the trial before the learned Civil Judge, was rightly dis-allowed as the same would have amounted to delay and prolong the decision of the case. The said order of 17.4.1994 was not in any way challenged before higher forum.
5. The application before the learned Appellate Court was moved for the same purpose and without disclosing any reason whatsoever as to why the name of the said witness was not included in the list of the witnesses to he produced by the petitioner/plaintiff. The said application has been rejected by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bahawalnagar for cogent reasons. Further the permission to produce such a witness, who was ever available to he produced at the appropriate stage would amount to further delaying not only the decision of the case but also filling up of lacunae for which the petitioner/plaintiff alone is responsible. The permission to produce such a witness cannot he allowed at this stage to further delay the disposal of the case.
6. Rule 27 of Order 41, CPC lays down that "The parties to an appeal shall not he entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court". There are, however, some exceptions provided for in the said rule. It is thus clear that there is a prohibition for the production of additional evidence unless a case is made out to fall in any of the exceptions and permission is granted. It is thus in the discretion of the Appellate Court to grant or refuse such a permission. Further the provisions cannot he invoked for the purpose of patching up of a weak case. It was held in Messrs Nazir Muhammad & Brothers and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1990 CLC 729) that permission in such like cases is in the discretion of the Court and cannot be granted to enable a party to till in the gaps/lacunae- in the case.
"In Abdul Hameed and 14 others v. Abdul Qayyum and 16 others (1998 SCM R 671) the order of the learned Appellate Court refusing the permission for additional evidence and the revisional order thereagainst upholding the Appellate order was maintained by the Supreme Court, observing that the parties were conscious of the questions involved in the suit and they had the opportunity to produce their respective evidence. Reference may also he made in Noor Muhammad and 8 others v. Mst. Sheran Bibi and 8 others (1998 SCM R 789).
7. There is no legal or other infirmity in the order impugned in this revision petition, which is unexceptionable. I am not inclined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court, in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. In view of the above, this revision petition has no merit. The same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.