IZZAT BAKHSH vs NAZEER AHMAD AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a review petition seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing a previous petition for special leave to appeal, which had upheld the High Court's finding that the registration of the sale in a pre-emption suit was not fraudulently concealed, thereby disentitling the petitioner from invoking section 18 of the Limitation Act. The core legal question is whether additional evidence, specifically a certified copy of a sale-deed and a fresh affidavit, can be permitted at the review stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to alter admissions made at trial regarding the date of knowledge of the sale. The Supreme Court held that the additional evidence cannot be allowed as it was within the petitioner's knowledge during the trial and fails to meet the criteria for additional evidence on appeal or review. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot introduce new evidence at the review stage to overcome admissions made during the trial when such evidence was already accessible.
- Can additional evidence be produced at the review stage to override an admission made at the trial?
- Does the failure to exercise due diligence in presenting evidence during the trial preclude its admission under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the invocation of Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 is permissible when fraudulent concealment of a sale-deed is not established?
- Section 18, Limitation Act 1908
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition seeks a review of the order made by us on the 19th of February 1974 dismissing C. P. S. L. A. No, 158 of 1972. While doing so, we observed that we were in agreement with the view taken by the majority of the learned Judges in the High Court that the registration of the sale sought to be pre-empted by the petitioner, was not fraudulently concealed from him by the vendors or the vendees, with the result that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the aid of section 18 of the Limitation Act.
2. ' It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an important piece of evidence, namely, a certified copy of the sale-deed in question, was omitted from consideration by the High Court, otherwise it would have shown that the petitioner had come to know of the sale only on or about the 22nd of June 1963, when the certified copy was applied for through one Munshi Barkat Ali, who had been instructed in this behalf by the petitioner's uncle Karam. At the Bar, an affidavit said to have been sworn by Munshi Barkat Ali was also produced and a request was made that it be placed on the record and read as a part of the evidence. All this effort has been made by the petitioner to get over the effect of the admission made by him at the trial that he had come to know of the sale almost immediately after its registration, and had sent his uncle Karam to Lahore to obtain a copy of the same.
3. It is obvious that the certified copy of the sale deed, as well as the affidavit said to have been sworn by one Munshi Barkat Ali, cannot be allowed to be produced in evidence at this late stage. There is no averment that these facts, or this evidence, were not within the knowledge of the petitioner when the suit was pending in the trial Court. The matter is not at all covered by the provisions of rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a result, we cannot permit the production of this additional A evidence for the purpose of reviewing our previous order. On the basis of the material already on the record, we had examined the matter at quite some length, and had concurred with the view of the evidence taken by the majority of the learned Judges in the High Court. Nothing has been said at the Bar today to persuade us to depart from the view taken by us on the previous occasion.
4. ' As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.