HAJI MUHAMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioners, Sikandar and others, against the respondents, Qamar Din and others. After framing of issues the parties produced evidence. The entire evidence was recorded by 26th March, 1990. Thereafter, on 23rd February, 1991, the petitioners made an application for permission to produce certain documents by way of additional evidence. Learned Civil Judge who was seized of the suit did not allow their application. His order in this regard was challenged by the petitioners by filing appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. Hence this civil revision.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence and, therefore, they were not placed before the learned trial Court at the stage of evidence. His arguments, however, stand belied by the application made by the petitioners inasmuch as it has not been stated therein that they had no knowledge of the documents in question before the evidence of the parties had concluded. It has been stated in the application that the above documents were not produced inadvertently. This is a vague assertion and cannot be treated as a sound reason for receiving additional evidence.

3. It is a cardinal principle of law that after the closure of evidence by the parties, no party can be allowed to improve upon his case by producing additional evidence unless there are cogent reasons justifying the receipt of additional evidence. Mere assertion that certain evidence was not produced inadvertently when the case was at the stage of evidence does not justify production of such evidence as additional evidence. Further, it was discretionary with the two Courts below to grant or withhold permission for adducing additional evidence, and they do not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity in disallowing the petitioner's prayer in this regard. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with their orders under challenge.

4. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

M.BA./S‑84/L Petition dismissed.