GHULAM QADIR And Another vs Mst. KUNDAN BIBI And Another
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision petition in limine. The petitioners had originally filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding a revenue mutation, which was dismissed by the trial Court and subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge. Before the High Court, the petitioners contended they were denied a proper opportunity to lead evidence on additional issues. The Supreme Court considered whether the trial Court acted arbitrarily in closing the petitioners' evidence and whether proper opportunity was afforded. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were grossly negligent in producing evidence, failed to comply with procedural requirements to submit documentary evidence alongside the plaint, and that the trial Court's discretion in closing evidence was exercised properly given the time constraints mandated by the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that parties cannot claim a right to additional time for evidence when negligent and failing to produce mandatory documents at the earliest stages, especially when judicial directions require expeditious disposal.
- Whether a trial court acts arbitrarily in closing evidence when a party fails to produce required documents and witnesses within the stipulated time?
- Is a party entitled to additional time to produce evidence when failing to file necessary documents along with the plaint as required by procedural law?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent findings and discretionary orders of lower courts regarding the closure of evidence absent any arbitrariness?
- Order VII Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
NAIMUDDIN, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 18-12-1988 whereby it dismissed the civil revision petition in limine in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioners filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran, for declaration that the order passed by the Revenue Officer on 19-5-1971 in respect of Mutation No.156 was unjustified, illegal, void and did not affect the rights of the petitioners and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from disputing the rights and possession of the petitioners in respect of the land mentioned in the plaint. The suit was defended by the respondents. The trial Court framed a number of issues and after recording evidence dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 19-3-1986. The petitioners filed an appeal from the judgment and decree but that too was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan on 12-9-1988 leading to the filing of the civil revision petition in the High Court which came up for preliminary hearing before the Court on 5-11- 1988. It was urged by the petitioners before the High Court that they were not given proper opportunity to lead their evidence on additional issues No.3 and 3-A, which were as follows:----- "3. Whether the plaintiffs (petitioners) are owners in possession of the suit land and the order of the Revenue Officer dated 19-5-1971 on Mutation No.156 is illegal, void and ineffective over the rights of the plaintiffs?
3-A. Whether the exchange Mutation No.181 dated 19-5-1971 in favour of Muhammad Zafar Hussain, defendant No.2 (respondent No.2) is not effective over the rights of the plaintiffs?
It was further urged before the High Court that the additional issues were framed on 5-3-1986 and the suit was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiffs to 8-3-1986 when their evidence was closed. In rebuttal, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the trial Court was directed by the High Court by its order dated 20-1-1986 that the suit should be decided within two months and that the issues were re-cast in order to fully cover the controversy between the parties otherwise there was in fact no difference. The High Court was not inclined to afford another opportunity to the petitioners for the following reasons recorded in the impugned order:---- "(i) Firstly, the petitioners did not even care to put a petition for summoning Patwari, who was the only witness which was to be examined by them to prove the issues as recast. This fact is clear from the order dated 8th of March, 1986. This negligence in face of the direction of this Court to decide the suit within two months cannot be ignored;
(ii) secondly, the petitioners were fully aware of the direction of this Court still they did not act promptly to produce the evidence; and
(iii) thirdly, this ground has not been urged in the revision petition."
3. On merits also the High Court, relying on the statements of Bakhsh Ali P.W.4 and Ghulam Qadir (petitioner) P.W.5 held that they were sufficient to non-suit the petitioners.
4. We have heard Ch. Abdur Rehman Advocate. His grievance is that the learned Civil Judge gave no opportunity to the petitioners to produce the certified copies of Mutation No.156 and Mutation No.181 attested on 19-5-1971. The petitioners' grievance is not well founded for he had three days time to produce the copies and summon the evidence on 8-3-1986. Further if the petitioners were relying on these documents, they should have filed the same along with the plaint as required under Order VII, rule 14, C.P.C. Otherwise they should have produced all the documentary evidence at the first hearing of the suit as required under Order XIII, rule 1, C.P.C. As their case related to the mutation entries, therefore, they should have obtained copies of the mutation in question before the date of hearing and filed the same in Court. They did not produce the copies for about 15 years as the suit was filed on 5-4-1971 and decided in 1986. It was discretionary with the Civil Judge to allow the petitioners further time for the purpose of producing additional evidence but, in the circumstances of the case, moreso when the High Court on remand had directed to decide the suit within two months, it cannot be said that the Civil Judge exercised his discretion in any arbitrary or capricious manner in closing the evidence of the petitioners. Moreover, no application was made for summoning the Patwari as stated by the High Court.
5. Therefore, no case for inheritance with the order of the High Court is made out. We accordingly refuse leave.