' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.-This appeal, with leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the High Court passed on 23-6-2001 whereby the revision petition filed by the appellant before the High Court, was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated are, that a declaratory suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants in the Court of Sub-Judge, Mirpur in respect of suit-land measuring 3 Kanals, 1 Marla comprising Khasra No.625 (new). The suit was at the stage of evidence of the plaintiff-appellant, when he moved an application before the trial Court seeking permission to produce certain documents, the photostat copies of which according to his application, had already been produced by him alongwith his plaint. The application was allowed to the extent of those documents whose photostat copies had already been furnished by the plaintiff-appellant.
However, the following three documents whose photostat copies were not furnished by him alongwith the plaint were returned to him vide order dated 27-10-1999:--
(i) attested copy of `Jamabandr pertaining to `Kharif 1998 to 'Rabih' 1999 in respect of land under `Khewat' No.1/1;
(ii) attested copy of `Jamabandi' pertaining to `Kharir 1986 to `Rabih' 1987 in respect of land under the above referred `Khewat' number; and
(iii) attested copy of `Jamabandi' pertaining to year 1979-80 'Bikrami' in respect of land under 'Khatas' Nos.27/34 to 49/32 ' On 29-10-1999 another case titled FaLai Dad v. Sajidah Begum, Civil Appeal "1163 of 1999 was decided by this Court in which the appellant was allowed to produce in the Court such documents whose authenticity was prima facie above suspicion. However, the respondent in that appeal was provided an opportunity to prove that such documents were forged. In the light of this decision the plaintiff-appellant moved a review petition before the trial Court on 22-4-2000, against the order passed by it on 27-10-1999, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 30-9-2000.
A revision petition was taken by the appellant before the High Court which was dismissed by the said Court on 23-6-2001. This order of the High Court is the subject-matter of the present appeal.
3. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, .The learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the discretionary powers allowed to the trial Court under Order XIII, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code were not properly exercised by the said Court. According to him, the relevant law was not properly applied by the trial Court while refusing him permission to produce attested copies of Revenue Record pertaining to the land in dispute. The learned counsel further argued that the documents which the appellants wanted to produce were the attested copies of public record and their authenticity was beyond doubt. He in . Support of his contention relied upon the judgment of this Court in a case titled Fazal Dad v. Sajidah Begum and others, Civil Appeal No.59 of 1999 decided on 29-10-1999. In this authority after framing of. Issues, defendant Sajidha Begum had produced her evidence and the case was fixed for the evidence of the appellant when his counsel tried to get certain documents exhibited in the statement of Bashir Ahmed Patwari/Senior Clerk which were not part of the file, however were available with the appellant on that date. A serious objection was raised on behalf of Sajidah Begum, defendant, that appellant cannot be allowed to get any new document exhibited as this practice would be against the spirit of Order XIII, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The objection was sustained by the trial Court and the appellant was refused to get any new document exhibited. According to the objection of the learned counsel for Sajidha Begum only such document could be admitted in evidence which had already been filed with the plaint by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. A revision petition was, filed by the appellant before the High Court which was rejected on the same ground that the document which appellant wanted to produce had not been filed by him in the Court alongwith his plaint. However, this Court after discussing number of authorities for and against the proposition accorded the permission to the appellant by observing as follows:-- "It follows that the learned Judge rejected permission for tendering the documents on the sole ground that appellant 041 not file the documents or their copies in the Court so as to satisfy the Court about their authenticity. However, this proposition is not supported by any precedent case. In Iqbal Ahmad's case in which the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the order of the High Court by which the plaintiff was allowed to produce 'Jamabandi' in second appeal, it is not mentioned that the larnabandi' had actually been filed in the Court. What is mentioned is that the plaintiff moved an application under Order 13, rule 2 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for permission to produce copy of `Jamabande. The learned Judge in the High. Court had observed that authenticity of a certified copy of 'Jamabandi', being part of the record of rights duly prepared according to law by Government officials, which the appellant wanted to produce was beyond dispute. In all other cases cited by the parties it is mentioned that permission was sought to produce the document.
The question as to how the Court will determine as to whether the document is authentic or not can be decided in light of the nature of the each document. Therefore, the correct rule seems to be that while liberally construing the question of production of official documents' it is sufficient if the document is stated to be an official document. Authenticity has to be presumed from the very nature of the document and it can be put to another test when the other party challenges its authenticity."
' The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the following case-law in support of his arguments:--
(1) Muhammad Hanif v. Mst. Parsan Bibi 1996 MLD 1158;
(2) Muhammad Ajaib v. Khal id Hussain PLD 1995 AJ&K 5;
(3) Muhammad Hussain and others v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others PLD 1984 Lah.
139;
(4) Faizuilah v. .Mst. Zaini PLD 1984 AJ&K 41;
(5) lqbal Ahmed and others v. Khtirshid Ahmed and others 1987 SCMR 74
4. While opposing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, argued that under Order XIII, rule 1 of Civil Procedure \ Code, a document can be received in evidence even at late stage if good cause is shown by the party who had failed to append such document with his plaint or written statement at the first date of hearing. According to him the copies of the Revenue Record which the appellants wanted to produce at this late stage were obtained by them after filing their suit in the trial Court whereas they should have obtained the copies of these documents before filing their suit if he wanted to rely upon them. He further argued that no doubt in the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants the public documents wefe allowed to be received in evidence but permission was granted when good cause was shown for non-production of such documents at the time of first hearing by the party. According to him in the present case no good cause has been shown by the appellants, therefore, the permission was rightly refused by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court. He further argued that the review petition was filed before the trial Court after the period of limitation, therefore, while dismissing the same the trial Court has not committed any error which would have justified the interference of the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. He in support of his contention relied upon The Lahore Improvement Trust v.
Sh. Karamat Ali PLD 1999 (W.P.) Lahore 597.
5. Raja Liaquat Ali Khan, the learned counsel for respondent No.5, argued that the appellants are not aggrieved persons, therefore, they have wrongly invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present appeal. While . Elaborating his view point he argued that the appellants in their first application submitted that they have already filed the photostat copies of public documents, therefore, they may be allowed to produce the attested copies of the same documents in support of their claim. The trial Court in accordance with the prayer made by them allowed the application to the extent of those documents whose photostat copies had been furnished by them with their plaint. The remaining three documents were returned to them by the trial Court as the photostat copies of such documents had not been furnished alongwith the plaint by the appellants. He further argued that as no request was made that these three documents should also be received in evidence, therefore, no error was committed by the trial Court in returning these documents to them. According to the learned counsel the trial Court recorded this order on 27-10-1999, whereas the review petition before the trial Court was filed by the appellants on 22-4-2000, much after the period of limitation available to them for availing the review jurisdiction of the trial Court. In the light of these submissions he requested that the appeal of the appellants be dismissed with costs.
6. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The main objection of the learned counsel for the respondents is that if a document is not appended. With the pleadings by the parties at the proper stage then in that case it can be received in evidence only if good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for its non-production at the earlier stage as required by Order XIII, rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code. The authority referred to by Raja Bashir Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, titled The Lahore Improvement Trust v. Sh. Karamat Ali PLD 1999 (W.P.) Lahore 597, fully supports his view point wherein it is laid down that if a document is not produced at the proper stage it can be received only if good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Courts for its non- production at the proper stage. In this case the document which the plaintiff-appellants wanted to file was a letter written by the plaintiff-appellants to the defendant. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellants contended that his clients wanted to produce the copies of the official record relating to the land in dispute about which they had already taken clear stand in different paragraphs of the plaint. According to the learned counsel the original documents were in possession of the officials of the Revenue Department and were not available with Its clients at the time when his clients had filed their suit in the Court of law, therefore, soon after when they obtained the copies of this official record they moved an application before the trial Court requesting therein that the same be received in evidence. According to him the possibility of any forgery cannot be presumed about this record which was prepared and maintained by the officials of th:. Government Department, therefore, mere delay was not sufficient to reject the application moved by his clients in this behalf. He in support of his contention as mentioned by us in the earlier part of this judgment relied upon certain authorities. In Muhammad Hanif v. Mst. Parsan Bibi 1996 MLD 1158., it was held that object of Order XIII, rule 2 was to exclude forged document and to expedite trial and not to exclude the genuine documents if there is no doubt as to authenticity of such documents and their admission was not in any way to delay the trial of any suit then such document should not be refused to be received in evidence merely on the ground of delay. In this case the view point expressed earlier by B.Z. Kaikaus, J. In a case titled Lahore Improvement Trust v.
Messrs Khuda Bakhsh Meraj Din PLD 1956 Lah. 252 was followed. The learned counsel also relied upon the case titled Muhammad Ajaib v. Khalid Hussain PLD 1995 Azad J&K 5, wherein it is held that Revenue Record which was essential for the decision of the case could be tendered in evidence at any stage of the proceedings. In this case `Misle-Haqqiat' in respect of land under dispute between the parties was allowed to be produced in the Court at much late stage. In Muhammad Hussain and others v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others PLD 1984 Lahore 139, referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, it was held that powers to the Courts under Order XIII, rule 2 should not be allowed to bar the production of such documents whose authenticity prima facie cannot be disputed. In this case the Revenue Record was received at late stage as the same was found essential for determining the controversy relating to the ownership and character of property in dispute. In case titled Faizullah v. Mst. Zaini PLD 1984 Azad J&K 41, it was held that Order XIII, rule 2 should be construed liberally s bar contained in Order XII, rule 1 is not absolute. In this case the Revenue Recohl was allowed to be received in evident c by holding that the production of public document should be allowed even at late stage in proper cases for the determination of the controversy involved in the case. The last authority which was referred to by him is a case titled Iqbal Ahmad and others v. Khurshid Ahmed and others 1987 SCMR 74. The facts of this case are identical with the facts of the present case, therefore, it appears appropriate to reproduce them in this judgment. One Khurshid Ahrred and Mst. Hameeda Bibi had filed a suit for possession by pre- emption regarding the land in dispute. However, no document is filed by Khurshid Ahmed in support of the plea justifying his superior right to purchase as compared to the vendee. Before his evidence was closed, Khurshid Ahmed moved an application before the trial Court under Order XIII, rule 2 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for permission to produce the copy of `Jamabandi' . The application was rejected by the trial Court on (sic)-5-1979. The plaintiff filed an appeal whiCh was rejected by the Additional District Judge on 30-9-1979. No further remedy was availed by the said plaintiff. Consequently the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal was filed against the dismissal order before the Additional District Judge alongwith an application under Order XLI, rule 27 for permission to produce the copy of the `Jamabandi' to enable the plaintiff to establish that he was the owner in the estate and therefore, had the superior right of preemption as compared to the vendee. The Additional 'District Judge rejected his application alongwith the appeal. He filed second appeal before the High Court which was still awaiting disposal when vide order dated 20-10-1986, the plaintiff was lallowed to produce an evidence in second appeal the copy of 'Jamabandi' to prove his qualification being an owner in the estate. This order was assailed before the Supreme Court. While refusing petition for leave to appeal the Supreme Court maintained the order of the High Court and opined as under:-- "Leave is now sought by the petitioners on the grounds that no good cause has been shown by the plaintiff/respondent for permission to produce copy of Jamabandi under Order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C.; that the cause shown in the application under the aforesaid order, speaks of gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff/ respondent; and that valuable right had accrued to the vendee and no premium can be allowed on the gross negligence of a preemptor."
' We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned judgment wherein the learned High Court Judge has bserved that the authenticity and genuineness of the certified'copy of Jamabandi, which was part of the record of rights duly prepared according to law by the Government officials, and which the appellant (respondent herein) wanted to produce to establish his superior right of pre-emption was beyond dispute; and that it is not understandable why the learned trial and the Appellate Courts below declined to allow its reception in evidence. We are of the view that the impugned order is not exceptionable. However, the petitioner can rebut the evidence produced in this behalf by any cogent evidence, and can also challenge the authenticity of the document (Jamabandi), and shall be entitled to produce evidence in rebuttal. With this observation this petition is dismissed."
(Underlining is ours).
7. From the survey of the above referred case-law it becomes clear that Order XIII, rule 1 is enacted with a purpose that nobody should manufacture the evidence subsequently after filing the suit or written statement in the Court of law. Under Order XIII, rule 2 the Court has been give ample powers to receive in eviden-e the genuine documents even if such ,Incomt..Nts were not produced at the first date of hearing by the relevant party alongwith. Its pleading. In a case titled The Lahore Improvement Trust v. Sh. Karamat Ali PLD 1999 (W.P.) Lahore 597, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, the document which was refused to be received in evidence was a letter of the plaintiff addressed to the defendant whereas in the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants the copies of Revenue Record were allowed to be received in evidence under order XIII, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. From these authorities it becomes clear that the Courts were liberal in according permission to produce copies of official record. However, they were very strict while dealing with private documents. From the reports of these authorities it becomes clear that documents of suspicion and forged nature cannot be allowed to be brought on record, however, any party cannot be penalized on the ground of delay in grantilig permission to such documents whose authenticity was above suspicious. The documents in the present case which were returned to the appellants are the attested copies of the Revenue Record which they had obtained in due course of law. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants were negligent in not obtaining the copies of Revenue Record before filing their plaint in the Court of law. The attested copies of the Revenue Record relating to the land in dispute cannot be received without compensating their opponents by awarding costs to them. In this case in the first application the appellants had not sought permission to produce these documents in evidence.
' However, in their so-called review petition they had requested the trial Court that these documents be received in evidence under the principles laid down by this Court in Fazal Dad's case decided on 29-Id-1999. Therefore, this application shall be treated as first application on behalf of the appellants in this regard. The permission has not been refused to the appellants that the documents were forged or their authenticity was suspicious rather was refused on account of delay which is not an absolute cause as held by us in the earlier part of this judgment. In the present case the trial Court should have not refused to receive in evidence the copies of the official record which was necessary for the just decision of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, while allowing this appeal the judgment of the High Court dated 23-6-2001, as well as the order of the trial Court dated 30-9-2000, are set aside. The appellants are allowed to produce these documents in support of their claim subject to the payment of Rs.5,000 as costs to the contesting party.