1983 CLC 2454

ORDER

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 whereby Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Yasin, petitioners want this Court to set aside the order dated 15th July, 1981 of the Civil Judge and order dated 15th April, 1982 of the Additional District Judge, respondent No. 1 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that the peti tioners herein filed a declaratory suit against Allah Dewaya and Faiz Bakhsh respondents Nos. 2 and 3 seeking declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession of the suit land measuring 6 Marlas purchased by-their predesessor-in-interest from the respondents. The suit was contested by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioners herein closed their evidence on 9th March, 1980 and thereafter on 13th June, 1981, i. e. after one year and three months they moved an application for permission to produce the original receipt dated 18th March, 1952. The learned trial Court dismissed this application on 15th July, 1981 Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed revision against that order which was also dismissed on 15th April, 1982. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel contends that a valuable right of the peti tioners is involved and if the petitioners are not allowed to produce the receipt in the evidence, they will suffer irreparable loss and that both the learned Courts below have ignored the fact that the receipt in dispute was mentioned in the list of the reliance and as such the petitioners had a right to produce the same at any stage of the suit.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I find that the trial. Court was legally competent to refuse permission to produce the receipt and for that the learned Court has given sound and cogent reasons. The trial Court has observed that the petitioners were given sufficient time but they did not produce the evidence and their evidence was closed on 9th March, 1980 and there was no justification for permission to produce the receipt which would require the examination of the witnesses. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that the receipt should have beers produced with the suit and that the receipt was not put to the respondent/defendant when he appeared in the witness box and that the receipt does not tantamount to an agreement to sell or a sale-deed.

5. I am of the opinion that the orders of the learned Courts below as detailed above are quite legal orders and do not merit any interference by this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction. Both the learned Courts below were competent to refuse the production of the receipt at late stage and have given reasons for the same.

For what has been stated above there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.

R.M.A. Writ petition dismissed.