Pakistan Case Law
2004 SCMR 1049

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs Mst. MAQSOODA ANJUM and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2004 SCMR 1049
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 810-L of 2003
Date2003-05-12
Judge(s)Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari
Authored byKaramat Nazir Bhandari
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding a decree of possession. The petitioner had sought to introduce additional evidence, specifically two agreements and receipts, during the pendency of an appeal before the District Court, Faisalabad, by filing an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This application was rejected by the Appellate Court, and the subsequent writ petition challenging that rejection was dismissed by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core question of whether additional evidence should be permitted to rectify deficiencies in a party's case. The Court held that additional evidence cannot be received to fill a lacuna or remedy a deficiency in a party's case. It affirmed that while additional evidence may be permitted if the Court requires it for the disposal of the case, it is not a mechanism to compensate for a party's or counsel's negligence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can additional evidence be admitted under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to fill a lacuna in a party's case?
  • Is the negligence of a counsel a valid ground for the appellate court to permit the production of additional evidence?
  • Under what circumstances is additional evidence permitted to be produced during an appeal?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Order 41, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
additional evidenceCivil Procedure Codelacunaappellate courtleave to appealnegligence of counsel

' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.---The decree of possession, dated 21-6-2001 was challenged by the petitioner in appealbefore. The District Court, Faisalabad. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for producing en record two agreements and some receipts as additional evidence. This application was contested and rejected. The order of rejection was challenged in Writ Petition No,2067 of 2003 which petition has been dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 19-2-3003. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this judgment of the High Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same argument before us that the application ought to have been allowed and that both the Appellate Court as well as High Court have erred in the matter.

3. We are not impressed. It is well-settled that additional evidence cannot be received to fill up the lacuna or provide for deficiency in the cast of a party. It is also well settled that the additional evidence is permitted if, the Court needs the same for purposes of disposal of the case. By requesting the Court to permit him to produce private documents as additional evidence, the petitioner was clearly trying to fill up a lacuna and provide for the deficiency in the case. This cannot be permitted. If petitioner's counsel has been negligent, as contended, the petitioner may have to proceed against the counsel concerned. However, this is not a good reason for grant of permission to adduce additional evidence.

4. No interference is called for against the impugned judgment. This petition is hereby dismissed and leave is refused.

Cited by 19 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.