1. This revision petition under section 115 of C.P.C. Is directed against the order dated 23-4-2002, passed by learned Civil Judge III, Quetta, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners for additional evidence and under Order 13, Rule 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. Were dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration cancellation of documents, permanent injunction and possession in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Quetta, which was transferred to the file of Civil Judge-III, Quetta, against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4'to 18, wherein it was prayed that the agreement dated 25-9-1998 and 23-6-1999 arrived at between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 regarding property bearing Khata No,127/167, situated in Ward No,22 Urban Quetta, be declared illegal and further declared that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had no lawful authority to execute the said documents. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing their written statements. Factual and legal objections were raised. Out of the pleadings following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of legal objection?
(2) Whether the agreement dated 25-9-1998 and 23-6-1999 are void and unenforceable against the proprietary, interest of the plaintiffs?
(3) Whether the plaintiff No,3 was legally entitled to execute agreement dated 23-6-1999?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to directions of the Court about cancellation of Mutation Entry No,385 dated 25-9-1998 and agreement dated 25-9-1998 and 23-6-1990?
(5) Whether document on the pad of Barrech Qoomi Itehad dated 23-9-1998 is false? Liable to be cancelled?
(6) Relief? Thereafter the parties were called upon to produce their evidence. Accordingly the respondents led their evidence and the petitioners were called upon to produce their evidence. The record reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs produced four witnesses and completed their evidence and the case was kept for the statements of the petitioners/defendants. In the meanwhile, an application for additional evidence was filed wherein permission was sought to produce certain documents in evidence and the list of documents is given in the said application. The respondents/plaintiffs opposed the said application. Inasmuch as, the maintainability of the application was also challenged. Thereafter, during pendency of the application for additional evidence, another application was filed under Order XIII, rule 2,, C.P.C., wherein permission was sought to produce documentary evidence. The detail of the documents given in the said application. The respondents again filed rejoinder to the said application and resisted the said application by raising factual and legal objections. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge III, Quetta, vide impugned order dated 23-4-2002 rejected the application, hence this petition. Mr.Naeem Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that to come to a just and proper decision, the trial Court was under an obligation to have accepted the said documents. Besides, no reason has been given for rejecting the same. Learned counsel further contended that proper application could not be filed due to negligence of the counsel and besides, the parties were also illiterate. Learned counsel stated that the petitioners changed their counsel, who after going through the file, came to know about the defects, thus filed the said application. Mr. Adnan Basharat, learned counsel appearing on behalf, of the respondents, vehemently opposed the instant petition and contended that the documents which were never referred to and filed alongwith written statement as required under Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C., thus at this belated stage cannot be accepted and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Besides, the rejection order is not a case decided, therefore, instant civil revision is also not maintainable. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record minutely with their assistance. I am not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Naeem Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners were illiterate and due to ignorance of the learned counsel, the documents proposed to be tendered in evidence could not be filed in time. It may be pointed out that it is well-settled principle that ignorance of law cannot be entertained as a good ground for non-compliance of law. The provisions of Order XIII, rule 1, C.P.C. Are mandatory and the documents relied upon should have been produced at the time of hearing. The object of rule 13 is to obviate the possibility of presenting forged or suspicious documents by the parties at a later stage of the proceedings. That under the law, the parties are required to produce their documents at the earliest stage and purpose being that both the parties should know as to what is the case against them and what documents are being relied upon. The question regarding documentary evidence relied upon by the parties must be resolved at an earlier stage of the proceedings so that other parties should not be taken by surprise at a belated stage. In the case in hand the petitioners have completed their evidence and the documents proposed to be produced by them have not been relied upon nor referred in the written statement and have given no sound and cogent reason for non production of the said documents. The contention that the said documents were not in possession of the petitioner at the time of filing of written statement is belied by their first application filed for additional evidence. Thus the learned trial Court has rightly refused to entertain the application of the applicant filed under Order XIII, rule 1, C.P.C. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Mr. Muhammad Umar Mirza v. Waris Iqbal and others 1990 SCM R 964.
2. Coming to the next contention of Mr.Adnan Basharat, learned counsel for the respondents that it is not a case decided. It was agreed that allowing or rejecting an application for oral or documentary evidence does not fall within the definition of a case decided. The contention of learned counsel has substance that while rejecting the application under Order XIII, rule 1, C.P.C. Does not lie within the definition of a case decided reference is made to Malik Habibullah v. Pak Cement Industries 1969 SCM R 965. Thus in view of the above discussion, admittedly a revision petition can only lie against a case decided, therefore, the instant revision petition is not maintainable on this score also. Thus for the foregoing reasons, I see no merits in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.