KHIZAR YASIN and others vs Mst. KHADIJA BIBI and others
This civil revision petition assails the order of the Additional District Judge, Khanewal dated 26-5-2003, whereby the petitioners' application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for producing additional evidence at the appellate stage was dismissed. The core legal question concerns the circumstances under which an appellate court may permit additional evidence and whether poor conduct of a case by counsel or the public nature of documents constitutes sufficient ground. The Lahore High Court held that the power under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. is discretionary and cannot be invoked by a party to patch up weaker points, fill omissions, or correct mistaken legal advice and inadvertence of advocates. The Court laid down the principle that mere discovery of fresh evidence or the fact that documents are public records does not justify allowing additional evidence where the party had the opportunity to produce the same before the trial court. Consequently, finding no jurisdictional error or perverse exercise of discretion, the revision petition was dismissed in limine.
- Can a party invoke Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to patch up weaker points or fill omissions in its case?
- Does mistaken legal advice or inadvertence of an advocate constitute a valid ground for producing additional evidence at the appellate stage?
- Whether the mere fact that documents sought to be produced are public record warrants the grant of an application for additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- When can a revisional court interfere with the discretionary orders passed by a subordinate appellate court regarding the admission of additional evidence?
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' In this civil revision an order passed by Additional District Judge., Khanewal on 26-5-2003 is assailed whereby application of the petitioner under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that respondents had filed a declaratory suit against the petitioners which was contested, issues were framed and it was ultimately decreed by the. Learned trial Court on 16-9-2002. The petitioners filed an appeal against' the aforesaid judgment/decree.
3. It was contested by the respondents and when the same was at the stage of final arguments an application under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. Was moved by the petitioners before the learned Appellate Court for producing oral and documentary evidence by way of additional evidence. It, was opposed by the respondents and was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Khanewal) on 26-5-2003.
4. The aforesaid order of the Appellate Court is assailed in this civil revision on the grounds that the additional evidence sought to be produced was public record and official witnesses; that the trial was badly conducted by Advocates who were not well conversant with law and the impugned order is not a speaking order.
5. Petitioners' counsel has been heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.
6. Power under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. Is discretionary in nature and can be invoked when evidence is required by the Appellate Court itself and not by a party to patch up weaker points of the case or filling up omissions.
7. Mistaken legal advice, inadvertence of Advocate or the fact that case was badly conducted in the lower Court or that documents sought to be produced were public record and were material for the determination of controversy were no grounds for allowing additional evidence.
8. Where the party had the opportunity but had not elected to produce the said evidence in the trial Court it could not be allowed to give evidence that could have been given in the lower Court.
9. Mere discovery of fresh evidence at later stage was also not a ground for allowing additional evidence.
10. Interference in revision with decisions regarding matters which are within the discretion of subordinate Court is unwarranted unless the order is contrary to the principles governing the exercise of such discretion or the Court had acted perversely or arbitrarily. An improper exercise of discretion may be corrected in appeal.
11. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is entirely reasonable and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in liming. #TBS #TBE
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD ACHAR vs SHAHMIR and 19 others 2015 YLR 2191
- Judicial Members and Shaista Abbas, Accountant Member,Messrs SHELL 2016 PTD (Trib.) 722
- Messrs SHELL (PAKISTAN) LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (INLAND 2013 PTD (Trib.) 353
- CH. NOOR AHMAD (deceased) through his Legal Heirs and 4 others vs ABDUL MAJID (deceased), through his Legal Heirs and 4 others 2005 PLJ Lahore 1502
- Ch. NOOR AHMAD through Legal Heirs vs ABDUL MAJID through Legal 2005 MLD 620