--No application for additional evidence is competent before trial Court, though an application for permission to produce further evidence is competent--Grounds for permission to produce further evidence are synonymous with a slight difference-

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 603

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----Ss. 115 & O.XXXVII--Suit for recovery--Application for permission to producing of additional evidence--Dismissed--Competence of application for additional evidence--Grounds for permission--Non-availability of grounds--Challenge to--No application for additional evidence is competent before trial Court, though an application for permission to produce further evidence is competent--Grounds for permission to produce further evidence are synonymous with a slight difference--For permission to produce further evidence is also a discretion of Court if Court is satisfied that for determination of real controversy in question between parties evidence is necessary, only then permission can be granted--mover of application is further obliged to satisfy Court that either evidence sought to be produced was not in knowledge of petitioner or circumstances beyond control of petitioner that evidence could not be produced at relevant stage--None of said grounds are available in application and when trial Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law this Court cannot differ with order passed validly by a Court of competent jurisdiction--Revision petition dismissed.

                                                                                       [P. 604] A & B

Rai Ashfaq Ahmed Kharal, Advocate.

Date of hearing: 18.1.2019.

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 603
Present: Amin-ud-din Khan, J.
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF--Petitioner
versus
AKBAR ALI--Respondent
C.R. No. 2799 of 2019, decided on 18.1.2019.

Order

Through this civil revision the petitioner, who is defendant in a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery against the petitioner, has challenged the order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the learned District Judge/trial Court whereby an application moved by the petitioner for permission to produce additional evidence was dismissed.

2. I have heard the preliminary arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also gone through the record available on the file.

3. The suit was filed on the basis of a cheque under Order XXXVII of the CPC on 27.09.2014. The leave was granted and written statement was filed. After framing of issues the parties were directed to produce their evidence. The pendency of suit for the last more than five years speaks volumes. The petitioner/defendant after completion of his evidence moved an application for permission to produce additional evidence, same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order.

4. When confronted with the learned counsel whether an application for permission to produce additional evidence is competent before the learned trial Court and further what is the defect in the order passed by the learned trial Court; he is unable to argue the point that application for additional evidence is competent before the learned trial Court. I am of the considered view that no application for additional evidence is competent before the learned trial Court, though an application for permission to produce further evidence is competent. Ignoring the fact that if a wrong provision of law is quoted in the application, same cannot be a ground for rejection of the application. Even the application is considered for permission to produce further evidence.

5. Now comes the question that what are the grounds for consideration of permission to produce further evidence. In my view, the grounds for permission to produce further evidence are synonymous with a slight difference. For permission to produce further evidence is also a discretion of the Court if the Court is satisfied that for determination of real controversy in question between the parties the evidence is necessary, only then the permission can be granted. The mover of application is further obliged to satisfy the Court that either the evidence sought to be produced was not in the knowledge of the petitioner or the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner that evidence could not be produced at the relevant stage. None of the said grounds are available in the

application and when the learned trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law this Court cannot differ with the order passed validly by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, I see no force in this civil revision as there is no defect in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, same stands dismissed in limine.

(Y.A.)  Revision petition dismissed