' In this civil revision an order passed by Additional District Judge., Khanewal on 26-5-2003 is assailed whereby application of the petitioner under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that respondents had filed a declaratory suit against the petitioners which was contested, issues were framed and it was ultimately decreed by the. Learned trial Court on 16-9-2002. The petitioners filed an appeal against' the aforesaid judgment/decree.
3. It was contested by the respondents and when the same was at the stage of final arguments an application under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. Was moved by the petitioners before the learned Appellate Court for producing oral and documentary evidence by way of additional evidence. It, was opposed by the respondents and was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Khanewal) on 26-5-2003.
4. The aforesaid order of the Appellate Court is assailed in this civil revision on the grounds that the additional evidence sought to be produced was public record and official witnesses; that the trial was badly conducted by Advocates who were not well conversant with law and the impugned order is not a speaking order.
5. Petitioners' counsel has been heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.
6. Power under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. Is discretionary in nature and can be invoked when evidence is required by the Appellate Court itself and not by a party to patch up weaker points of the case or filling up omissions.
7. Mistaken legal advice, inadvertence of Advocate or the fact that case was badly conducted in the lower Court or that documents sought to be produced were public record and were material for the determination of controversy were no grounds for allowing additional evidence.
8. Where the party had the opportunity but had not elected to produce the said evidence in the trial Court it could not be allowed to give evidence that could have been given in the lower Court.
9. Mere discovery of fresh evidence at later stage was also not a ground for allowing additional evidence.
10. Interference in revision with decisions regarding matters which are within the discretion of subordinate Court is unwarranted unless the order is contrary to the principles governing the exercise of such discretion or the Court had acted perversely or arbitrarily. An improper exercise of discretion may be corrected in appeal.
11. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is entirely reasonable and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in liming. #TBS #TBE