.
MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the order of Civil Judge, Muzaffarabad dated 27th May, 2003, whereby the learned Trial Court has declined to allow to confront the gift deed to the witness petition-writer.
2. The relevant and necessary facts for disposal of the instant revision petition are; that non- petitioners brought a suit for possession of land measuring twenty Kanals and seven Marlas comprising survey Nos. 578/138, 580/139, 582/253, Khewat No. 68, situated in Village Machiyara Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad. It was averred by them, that the aforesaid land was owned by Mst. Baggi. She died in the year 1957. A mutation of her succession was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs/non-petitioners. The defendants/petitioners were occupying the land being tenants at will on, but they are not paying produce of the land. Thus, they were entitled to ejectment, therefore, a decree for possession, may be passed in their favour and against the defendants.
3. During the pendency of the suit, on 18th March, 2002, evidence of the defendants was closed.
Subsequently, an application was moved, on which the petitioner-writer was summoned as a witness. During the cross-examination, the defendants ,wanted to confront him a copy of the registered gift deed executed by Mst. Baggi, in favour of the defendants. The Trial Court, disallowed them. Now, this order has been challenged through the instant revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that according to the plaintiffs, they were the heirs of Mst. Baggi and being her heirs, a mutation was sanctioned in their favour, therefore, they were owners of the aforesaid land. He further submitted that while Mst. Baggi had transferred the said land through a gift deed during her life to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants (Late Muhammad Suleman). It was a registered document. The petitioners wanted to tender it into evidence, but it was not allowed by the Trial Court. Now, through this revision petition, it has been craved that they may be allowed to tender the gift deed dated March 5th, 1958 in evidence.
5. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that Mst. Baggi died in 1957, while a fake and fictitious gift deed was manufactured and now the defendants wanted to produce it in evidence. He submitted that it was the basic duty of the defendants to produce all the documentary evidence on the first date of hearing as required under Order 13, Rule 1 of CPC. He further contended that prior to this, the petitioners moved an application in this respect, which was disallowed. A revision petition was filed before the High Court and the High Court did not allow the same, therefore, it could not be allowed now.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and have given my utmost muse to the respective arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The primary question requiring determination is, whether the gift deed was a necessary document for proper pronouncement of the judgment and it can be produced at this stage?
8. It is pertinent to note that gift deed was a registered document. No doubt, under Order 13, Rule 1, CPC, it was the duty of the parties to produce all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on the first date of hearing, but under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC even such document could be received at a subsequent stage of the proceedings if a good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non-production thereof, and the Court feels that it is necessary for proper pronouncement of the judgment. .
9. Now, the question emerges as to what sort of consideration will weigh, while considering that a document should be allowed, which has not been produced on the first date of hearing, as required under Order 13, Rule 1, CPC? The Court, while considering such document shall not restrict itself to a particular line or scheme. The legislature has wisely made him the Judge of the situation. He has to exercise the powers in each case according to the circumstances of such case. It is well-settled principle of law, that the Court shall liberally construe the Order 13, Rules, 1 and 2, CPC, because the basic object and purpose of this order was to administer and foster the justice. It would not be out of place to mention here that all the Rules of Procedure are meant for the purpose of administration of justice and they should be subordinate to this very purpose. It is to be noted, that where prima facie, the authenticity or genuineness of a document is beyond any doubt or suspicion, then it should be allowed, because the simple admission of a document shall not cause any harm as its reliability and effect has to be determined and while determining as such, it can be held that, it is of no value, while in case of its rejection, its value or importance will never be considered and its result may be an injustice.
10. It is well-settled principle of law, that procedural law should be liberally adhered to because its basic object is to advance the cause of justice. As the admission of a document is procedural law and procedure is only meant for doing the proper and better justice. The basic object of the procedure is to advance the justice and not to defeat the ends of justice.
11. The provisions of Order 13, Rule 1 contained that a party shall produce all the documents in evidence on the first date of hearing. First date of hearing means the date on which the issues are framed, while Rule 2 contained that no documentary evidence in power of possession of the party, which has not been produced in accordance with the requirement of Rule 1, shall be received at any subsequent stage, until and unless a good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non -production thereof. The wisdom behind this order was to prevent the forged and fictitious documents and not to punish for non-production of the same in time, It is entirely the discretion of the Court t9 allow or reject a document, Such discretion must be exercised judicially according to the circumstances of each case. This view finds support from PLD 1984 Lah. 139.
12. The fundamental purpose of this rule was to exclude the forged and fictitious documents and to expedite the trial, but not to leave aside the genuine documents. Any document, the genuineness of which is beyond any doubt, could be allowed even at a late stage. This view finds support from 1987 CLC 504 and PLD 1984 AJ&K 41.
13. It also could not be ignored that, when the Court finds that a document is necessary for resolution of real controversy between the parties, then it could not be disallowed, if its genuineness is beyond any shadow of doubt. This view finds support from PLD 1984 Lah. 139.
14.
15. In this case, the document which the defendants, want to produce, is a registered document, according to which, Mst. Baggi appeared before the Sub-registrar and executed the gift deed of land in dispute, in favour of the defendants. Therefore, at this stage, it could not be said that genuineness of the document is doubtful. However, it can be proved during the course of evidence and the value and authenticity of this document could only be considered after admitting it into evidence.
16. As the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that this document was executed in 1958 while Mst. Baggi had died in 1957. Any finding on this point could only be recorded after admitting this document in evidence. At this stage, no finding could be recorded, because it shall cause a prejudice to the Trial Court.
16. It is to be noted here, that according to this document, the land was transferred to the defendants by Mst. Baggi in her life, therefore, this document is essential for the proper pronouncement.
17. As the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that prior to this, a revision petition was filed in the High Court and this document was disallowed, it has no substance, because I have gone through the judgment of the High Court dated May 18th, 2003, wherein nowhere the petitioners were refused to produce the said document in evidence, rather it was. Not considered by this Court, that the document may be allowed or not. Therefore, it could not be said that the admission of this document was rejected by the High Court. As stated above, that this document is necessary for just decision of the case, therefore, it admission could not be declined.
The upshot of the above discussion is that, this revision petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed to confront the gift deed to the witness petition-writer and tender the same in evidence also. .