Sh. QAMAR JAVID and others vs Sh. HASSAN ALI
This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment in revision, which had allowed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the production of additional evidence, set aside the appellate decree, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence were relevant to the determination of the disputed property identification and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the appellate judgment and remanding the matter instead of adjudicating the revision petition on its merits. Upon examining the documents, the Supreme Court held that they had no bearing on the factual issues in controversy and that the application was accepted without proper judicial application of mind. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissed the application for additional evidence, and remanded the revision petition to the High Court for decision on its merits based on the existing record.
- Whether additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC can be allowed if the documents sought to be produced have no bearing on the core issues in dispute?
- Whether the High Court can mechanically grant permission to produce additional evidence without determining its necessity or relevance for deciding the case?
- Whether a High Court in revision should set aside an appellate decree and remand the suit upon allowing additional evidence rather than deciding the revision on merits after taking such evidence into account?
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16-12-1998 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench through which revision petition filed by respondent against the judgment dated 29-6-1978 of the First Appellate Court accepting the appeal of the petitioners and setting aside the judgment dated 28-2-1978 of the trial Court has been accepted on acceptance of the application made by respondent under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. For permission to produce additional evidence and the case remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision of the suit after recording additional evidence.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the two documents which were sought to be produced as additional evidence did not have any bearing upon the point in issue between the parties i.e, identification of the properties purchased by the parties from the Settlement Department and the area underneath them which questions were decided by two Courts below on the basis of evidence led by the parties. He also maintained that merely because application for permission to lead additional evidence had been accepted was no ground to set aside the judgment and decree of First Appellate Court for after production of the said documents on record and allowing the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the same by producing evidence in rebuttal the revision petition should have been decided on merits if at all said additional evidence was found necessary for the decision of the case. He also maintained that application for permission to lead additional evidence, was accepted mechanically on the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent/revision petitioner that the same could not be produced as he was not aware of the same without judicial application of mind whether this ground was available to the respondent.
3. We have examined the two documents which were sought to be produced in additional evidence and find that the contents of the same have no bearing on the pleas of the parties regarding identification of the properties and the area underneath about which evidence had already been produced by the parties and the same was thoroughly examined by the trial Court and First Appellate Court, therefore, said additional evidence was not at all relevant for the purpose of disposal of the suit on merits.
4. ' For the foregoing reasons this petition is converted into appeal and accepted. Judgment dated 16-12-1998 passed by Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench is set aside. Application made by revision petitioner for additional evidence is hereby dismissed. The revision petition shall now be decided by the High Court on its own merits in accordance with law on the basis of evidence already led by the parties. No order as to costs.