SHAKIR ALI KHAN AND Others vs TAUHID AHMAD KHAN ETC.S
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the petitioners seeking the removal of walls obstructing a passage. During the final arguments, the petitioners applied to produce additional evidence in the form of a site plan that had been annexed to the plaint but not formally proved during the trial. The trial court rejected this application, noting that another plan had already been exhibited. The petitioners challenged this rejection through a revision petition before the District Judge, which was dismissed, and subsequently filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, which was also dismissed. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion regarding the production of additional evidence. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision was a discretionary matter under the Code of Civil Procedure, and since there was no lack of lawful authority, the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, establishing that the production of additional evidence is not a right but a matter of judicial discretion.
- Is the production of additional evidence a matter of right or judicial discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a High Court interfere in a writ petition against an order of a civil court regarding the production of additional evidence where no lack of lawful authority is shown?
- Order XVIII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Shakir Ali Khan etc. Filed a civil suit praying for a mandatory injunction requiring the respondents to remove the walls and keep open the passage of Koocha Khas for the petitioners. A copy of the plan was attached with the plaint. The respondents contested the suit.
When the case came up for final arguments the petitioners moved an application for permission to prove the site plan which had been annexed to the plaint but which had not been proved at any stage when the evidence was recorded. This prayer was rejected on the ground that meanwhile another plan had already been exhibited.
2. The petitioners felt aggrieved and moved the District Judge in his revisional jurisdiction. Their prayer did not find favour with the learned District Judge and, therefore, they filed a Writ Petition No. 4454/79 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by an order of a learned Single Judge of that Court on 18-8-1979.
Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It has been submitted before us that it was incumbent upon the civil Courts to have granted the permission.
4. Order 18(2) of the Code of Civil. Procedure gives the authority to the Court to grant permission for production of additional evidence. It is clear from the rule itself that, production of such evidence is not a matter of right and is dependent upon the discretion of the civil Court. This discretion was duly exercised by the learned Civil Judge and the petitioner was able to test the correctness of it by filing a revision petition before the District Judge. That is all that the law permits to the petitioners.
5. Since it was not a case of lack of lawful authority the writ petition wart just not maintainable before the High Court. The High Court, there fore, acted in accordance with law in dismissing the writ petition and we affirm that order Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. SAJIDA PARVEEN AKHTAR vs MUHAMAMD KHALID JAVED and 3 others 2005 YLR 82
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB KHAN vs S. MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ HUSSAIN and others 1985 CLC 2705
- MUNIRUL HASSAN vs WAPDA 1982 PLC (C. S.) 541