RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSH1D, J.- This writ petition is filed in order to challenge the order dated 13.3.1999 passed by leamed Civil Judge lst Class, Kamalia, whereby, he rejected the application of the Petitioner/plaintiff in a suit for declaration for producing additional evidence consisting of documents. It was observed by the learned Civil Judge while dismissing the application that the case was at the stage of arguments when the application for additional evidence was moved. This petition was moved to produce the certified copy of mutation No. 8101 and the copies of judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 27,3.1989 and the judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 22.5.89 which could not be earlier produced through inadvertance. It was further observed by the learned Civil Judge that the inadvertance was not a good ground to allow the documents to be brought on record which were available at the time of institution of the suit to the Petitioner/plaintiff and were never relied upon nor those copies were placed on record as required by Order XIII, CPC. The belated production of those documents Was allegedly to prejudice the case of the other party, and would prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. The revision petition was filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge which was also dismissed on 16.6.1999 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kamalia on the ground that inadvertence was no cause for allowing the production of additional evidence when the-same could be produced otherwise at the start of the trial.
2. I have considered the foregoing submissions and, find that both the Courts below have concurred in dis-allowing the application for additional evidence by advancing cogent reasons.
The matter is yet pending in the trial Court and the case has not yet been finally decided so as to assume the finality of the decision to attract the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
3. Even on merits, the inadvertance to produce the documentary evidence cannot be allowed to be considered as a sufficient ground to allow the production of documents which were available even at the time of the institution of the suit. The law requires that a litigant should be vigilant and not indolent while conducting the proceedings in a law Court. In the instant case, the petitioner was highly indolent to bring the documents in question on record in time although a little effort on his part would have prompted him to place those documents with the plaint at the time of institution of the suit, or at least reliance should have been made if at all those documents were considered to be necessary for adjudication of the matter in dispute. The mere inadvertance or negligence on the part of a litigant cannot be allowed to reap a premium by him against the other side which has been objecting to the production of the documents in question on the ground that it was in order to delay the proceedings so that it was in order to delay the proceedings so that the aggrieved party may not be able to take the possession which according to them was illegally taken away.
4. In view of the above facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
5. These petitions stand disposed of with the disposal of the main petition.