2021 Law Notes 277
---Order XLI rule 27---The judgment reported as Muhammad Tariq and others vs. Mst. Shamsa Tanveer and others (PLD 2011 SC 151) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners underlines the ratio reproduced as follows: “Suffice it to say that on the authority/power of this court to do complete justice and allowing additional evidence there cannot be any cudgel, however, such power should not be exercised as a matter of course to favour a delinquent litigant, rather in genuine cases and obviously those where the foundation of the plea is already there---But we are not convinced, if these precedents can provide any support to the petitioners in the instant case, because the principles laid therein are relevant to the facts of those cases and not to the one in hand, especially when at the very outset the noted plea was not a part of the defence; no effort at any stage was made to seek amendment of the written statement, rather to the contrary the issue of superior right of the respondent was conceded before the appellate Court and it was not agitated in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---It may also be stated that additional evidence can only be allowed by the Court when it is in consonance with, and within the scope of the pleading of the parties and not otherwise, but as mentioned earlier the plea till date is not part of the defence of the petitioner in written statement”---Ratio of the judgment is that there is no absolute prohibition in granting permission for additional evidence but parameters have been enunciated in terms that there must be link and reference of that plea in the pleadings to vindicate/ substantiate thereof examining of missed documents is necessary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment