P L D 2025 Balochistan 118
Before Rozi Khan Barrech, J
UMER KHAYAM JOGEZAI and 4 others ---Petitioners
Versus
MUMTAZ and 22 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 328 of 2024, decided on 15th October, 2024.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----Ss. 115, 151, O.VII, R. 14 & O. XIII, Rr. 1, 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 8
& 54--- Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Application for
production of document, rejection of ---Delay in filing the application ---Good cause, presence
of---Petitioner assailed the order of rejection of application---Held: Order XIII, Rule 2,
C.P.C. provided a remedy when a party failed to produce documents under O. XIII, R. 1 or O. VII, R. 14, C.P.C., which laid down that documentary evidence not produced as required should only be received if good cause for non- production was shown to the court's
satisfaction, and the court must record its reasons for admitting such evidence ---Mere delay
in filing is not sufficient cause to disallow the document production, negating the purpose of O. XIII, R. 2, C.P.C.--- Application to produce documents or additional evidence can be filed
at any stage, especially when document's genuineness is certain ---Such evidence should not
be excluded if produced late ---Court has discretion to admit documents at a later stage to
ensure justice and decide rights on merits, not on technicalities ---If document authenticity is
not in doubt, the application should not be lightly dismissed, as procedures aim to advance justice, not obstruct it--- Civil revision was accepted, in circumstances.
Muhammad Naeem Kakar for Petitioners.
Adnan Ejaz for Respondents Nos. 1 to 21.
Ameer Zaman Jogezai for Respondents Nos. 22 to 23.
Date of hearing: 10th October, 2024.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the order dated
30.04.2024 ("the impugned order") passed by learned Civil Judge, Kila Saifullah ("the trial court"), whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2 has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a representative suit for declaration,
possession, and permanent injunction against the respondents. The respondents contested the suit of the petitioners on legal as well as factual grounds and denied the claim of the petitioners. The trial court out of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues, and after framing of issues, the trial court directed the parties to produce their respective evidence. The petitioners produced four witnesses, when the case was fixed for further evidence of the petitioners, the petitioners filed an application under Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for placing the documents through the representative of the revenue authority, and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.04.2024, whereafter the instant petition was filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of
the case with their able assistance.
4. The phrase "good cause" means adequate, sound, and genuine reason. It depends upon
the facts and circumstances of individual cases as there is no set formula or criterion to determine as to what constitutes a good cause. Whether a good cause or sufficient cause is made out or not? It depends upon the facts of each case; however, the (phrase "good cause"
used in Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. should be construed liberally to serve the ends of justice.
Order XIII, Rule 2 is a general provision applicable to both i.e. the plaintiff as well as
the defendant, and makes available to both the benefit of the provision liberally. The court
may, at its discretion, admit the documents at the subsequent stage of the proceedings to dispense with justice with the sole aim and objective that the function of the court is to do substantial justice and decide the rights on merits rather than technicalities.
5. It may also be observed here that the rationale behind Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., is to
prevent fraud and not penalize the parties for the non- production of the documents, and in
this regard, there is no hard and fast rule, but the matter is left open to the discretion of the court to decide on sound judicial principles depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If there is no doubt in the authenticity of documents then the application should not be discarded lightly as rules and procedures are intended to advance the cause of justice rather than obstruct it.
6. Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C., provides that parties or their pleaders shall produce at the
first hearing of the suit all documentary evidence of every description in their possession or
power on which they intend to rely and which has not already been filed in court and all
documents which the court has ordered to be produced. Under sub- Rule (3), it is further
provided that on the production of documents under this rule, the court may call upon the
parties to admit or, deny the documents produced in court and record their admission or as the case, may be denial. In order to cater for the exigency and to cope with this situation
where the party fails to produce the documents under rule 1 or under Order VII, Rule 14,
C.P.C. a rider has been provided under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. and the letter of the law
lay down that no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which
should have been but not have been produced in accordance with the requirement of the rule shall be received at any stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the
satisfaction of the court for non- production thereof and the court receiving any such evidence
shall record the reason for doing so. A mere delay in filing an application would not be a
reasonable ground or sufficient cause to disentitle or disallow the person/party to produce the document which would negate Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., especially designed to remedy such a situation. Application for permission to produce documents and or additional evidence may be filed at any stage
when the genuineness of the documents is beyond, any shadow of
doubt and it ought not to be shut out of evidence if produced at a late stage.
7. The record transpires that the documents sought to be produced are very proper and
essential for a just and proper decision of the case and will not be harmful to the respondents and if the same are brought on record the respondents shall have full opportunity to question the said documents during cross -examination. The record further shows that the above
documents are relevant documents and will also assist the court in deciding the actual controversy. The document i.e. map of the mahal of the disputed property is a public documents, which is in the custody of the revenue authority, therefore, no question of manipulation and tampering will be raised.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted and the order dated
30.04.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. is hereby accepted and the petitioners are directed to produce the proposed documents through a representative of the revenue authority.
SA/105/Bal. Petition allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.