Application for additional evidence approved

اضافی شہادت کی اجازت: سپریم کورٹ کا اصولی مؤقف

سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے Civil Petition No.1692-L of 2022 میں یہ اہم اصول واضح کیا ہے کہ اگر انصاف کے تقاضے پورے کرنے کے لیے اضافی شہادت (Additional Evidence) ضروری ہو تو عدالت کو آرڈر XLI رول 27، ضابطۂ دیوانی (CPC) کے تحت ایسی شہادت ریکارڈ کروانے کی اجازت دینے کا اختیار حاصل ہے۔

مقدمے کا پس منظر

درخواست گزار شمشاد بی بی نے دعویٰ کیا کہ:

وہ جبار دین کی بیٹی

اور مرحومہ کریمہ بی بی کی پوتی ہے

تنازع جبار دین اور اس کی والدہ کے انتقال کے بعد ہونے والی وراثتی انتقال (Inheritance Mutation) سے متعلق ہے

درخواست گزار کو وراثت میں غلط طور پر محروم رکھا گیا

درخواست گزار کے مطابق:

جبار دین کی تین بیویاں تھیں

درخواست گزار اپنی والدہ مسماۃ فاطمہ بی بی سے واحد بیٹی تھی

اس کے باوجود اسے وراثتی انتقال میں شامل نہیں کیا گیا

ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے:

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC کے تحت

اضافی شہادت کی درخواست منظور کی

اور معاملہ ٹرائل کورٹ کو واپس (Remand) کر دیا

ساتھ ہی سول ریویژن منظور کرتے ہوئے نچلی دونوں عدالتوں کے متفقہ فیصلے کالعدم قرار دیے

سپریم کورٹ میں مؤقف

درخواست گزار نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ:

اضافی شہادت کی اجازت دینا

اور نچلی عدالتوں کے متفقہ فیصلے ختم کرنا

قانون کے خلاف ہے

سپریم کورٹ کا اصولی فیصلہ

معزز عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ:

اگر کوئی اہم شہادت:

پہلے پیش نہ ہو سکی ہو

اور وہ تنازع کے منصفانہ فیصلے کے لیے ضروری ہو

تو:

عدالت کے لیے لازم ہے کہ وہ محض تکنیکی بنیادوں پر انصاف کی راہ میں رکاوٹ نہ بنے

عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ:

آرڈر XLI رول 27 CPC کا مقصد:

انصاف کی فراہمی

اور حقیقی حقائق تک رسائی ہے

قانونی نکتہ

عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ:

اضافی شہادت کی اجازت معمول نہیں

لیکن جہاں:

وراثت کے حق

خاندانی تعلق

یا شناخت کا معاملہ ہو

وہاں عدالت کو لچکدار اور منصفانہ رویہ اختیار کرنا چاہیے۔

نتیجہ

سپریم کورٹ نے:

ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے میں مداخلت ضروری نہیں سمجھی

اور درخواستِ اجازت (Leave) پر حکم جاری کرتے ہوئے

اضافی شہادت ریکارڈ کرنے کے عمل کو برقرار رکھا

قانونی خلاصہ

🔹 اضافی شہادت انصاف کے لیے ناگزیر ہو تو منظور کی جا سکتی ہے

🔹 Order XLI Rule 27 CPC انصاف کا آلہ ہے، رکاوٹ نہیں

🔹 وراثتی حقوق جیسے معاملات میں عدالتیں تکنیکی اعتراضات پر انحصار نہیں کرتیں

🔹 منصفانہ ٹرائل بنیادی آئینی حق ہے

Judgement

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, HCJ

MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH

CIVIL PETITION NO.1692-L OF 2022

(Against the order dated 24.05.2022 of the

Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil

Revision No.107777 of 2017)

Shamshad Bibi, etc.

…Petitioner(s)

Versus

Riasat Ali, etc.

…Respondent(s)

For the petitioner(s):

Malik Ejaz Hussain Gorche, ASC

(via video-link, Lahore)

For the respondent(s): Rana Maqsood ul Haq, ASC

(via video-link, Lahore)

Date of hearing:

25.05.2023

ORDER

Athar Minallah, J.- Shamshad Bibi (“petitioner”) has sought

leave against the order, dated 24.5.2022, whereby the High Court

allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and has remanded the matter to the trial court

for recording of additional evidence. The civil revision was also

subsequently allowed and the concurrent findings of the two competent

courts were set-aside.

The petitioner asserted in the plaint that she was the

daughter of Jabbar Din and granddaughter of Mst. Karima Bibi. The

dispute is regarding the inheritance mutation incorporated in the

revenue record after the passing away of Jabbar Din and his mother

Mst. Karima Bibi. The property was described in the plaint. It was

asserted that Jabbar Din had three wives, one of whom had been

divorced. Jabbar Din had children from all the three wives and the

petitioner was the only daughter from Mst. Fatima Bibi. The petitioner

was excluded from the inheritance mutation incorporated in the revenue

record after the passing away of Jabbar Din and, later, his mother. The

petitioner, therefore, challenged her exclusion by filing a suit for

declaration, permanent injunction and malkana possession. The trial

court had framed eight issues including the issue regarding the

legitimacy of the petitioner as Jabbar Din’s daughter. The suit was

decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2012,

while the appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed vide

judgment and decree dated 08.11.2017. During the pendency of the

appeal before the appellate Court, an application was filed seeking a

direction to the petitioner to conduct her DNA test. The application was

allowed, vide order dated 22.6.2013, and later it was set-aside by the

High Court vide order dated 08.12.2016. The judgments and decrees of

the trial court and the appellate Court, whereby the petitioner’s suit was

decreed, were assailed before the High Court, invoking its revisional

jurisdiction under section 115 of the CPC. The respondents filed an

application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and it was allowed by

the High Court vide impugned order dated 24.5.2022. Simultaneously,

the revision petition was also allowed and the concurrent findings of the

two competent courts were set-aside. The matter was remanded to the

trial court with a direction to record additional evidence.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties at great

length.

The questions that have arisen for our consideration are; whether

the High Court, while exercising its revisional powers under section 115

of the CPC, was justified in accepting the application under Order XLI

Rule 27 of the CPC and remanding the matter for recording of additional

evidence; whether the High Court, in the absence of jurisdiction having

been exercised illegally or without material irregularity by the

subordinate courts, was justified to allow the revision petition and

remand the matter to the trial Court. The powers vested in the High

Court under section 115 of the CPC are to be exercised in accordance

with the parameters described in clauses (a) to (c) ibid. The revisional

powers are meant for correcting errors made by the subordinate courts

in the exercise of their jurisdiction. Ordinarily, erroneous decisions of

fact are not revisable, except in cases where the decision is based on no

evidence or inadmissible evidence and is so perverse that grave injustice

would result therefrom.1 Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC empowers the

appellate Court to allow additional evidence to be adduced, whether oral

or documentary, after the recording of reasons. This power is

circumscribed by three eventualities described in clauses (a) to (c) i.e. if

the court, from whose decree the appeal has been preferred, has refused

to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; the appellate

court, on being satisfied that the additional evidence was available but

could not be produced before the trial court for reasons beyond the

control of the party seeking its production; or the appellate court itself

requires any such evidence so as to enable it to pronounce a judgment.

Rule 28 of Order XLI describes the procedure for taking additional

evidence and provides that the appellate court may either take such

evidence or direct the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred,

or any other subordinate court, to take such evidence and to send it

when taken to the appellate court. Rule 29 of Order XLI further provides

that where additional evidence is directed or allowed to be taken, the

appellate court shall specify the points to which evidence is to be

confined and record in its proceedings the points so specified. It would

also be relevant to refer to Rule 23 of Order XLI of CPC which describes

the mode and conditions for remanding of a case by the appellate court.

Rule 27 of Order XLI explicitly refers to an appellate court but by now it

is well settled that in exceptional cases the power can also be exercised

1 Kanwal Nain and others v. Fateh Khan and others (PLD 1983 SC 53)

by the revisional court. A larger Bench of this Court has held that,

ordinarily, at the stage of civil revision there is no question of recording

additional evidence, but there may be exceptional cases where, in the

interest of justice and if so required by the court to enable it to

adjudicate on the matter, the court may order that such additional

evidence should be recorded.2 In exceptional cases depending on the

facts and circumstances, a court exercising revisional jurisdiction may

record clarificatory statement or admit evidence in any other form, in

order to determine whether the lower court had acted illegally or with

material irregularity, so as to attract clause (c) of section 115(1) of the

CPC.3 Another larger Bench of this Court has held that where in a case

falling under section 115 (1)(c) of the CPC, it has been established that

the appellate court had exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with any

material irregularity then the scope of additional evidence is not

excluded. Additional evidence can, therefore, be admitted in exceptional

cases and to rectify the error where the court had acted illegally or with

material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and justifiably fell

within the four corners of the power vested in the High Court under

section 115 of the CPC.4

The power under order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC is not

intended to be exercised to fill up lacunas, or to make up any deficiency

in the case, nor to provide an opportunity to the party to raise a new

plea. The power essentially has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly

and not to facilitate an indolent litigant. The court, before exercising its

jurisdiction of allowing the recording of additional evidence, must be

satisfied that the document sought to be adduced in evidence is not of

the nature that could be easily fabricated, tampered or manufactured.

2 Ahmad Ashraf v. University of Punjab (1988 SCMR 1782)

Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others (PLD 1986 SC 88)

4 Mohabbat v. Asadullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 SC 112)

In the case in hand, the petitioner had brought sufficient

evidence on record to prove, on the touchstone of the principle of

balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence, the factum of

being Jabbar Din’s daughter. The respondents were not able to rebut the

evidence and, therefore, the two competent courts concurrently recorded

findings in favour of the petitioner’s claim. The respondents had filed an

application before the appellate court, seeking a direction to the

petitioner to subject herself to a DNA test. The application was allowed

but subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The respondents had not

filed any application before the trial court nor the appellate court for the

recording of additional evidence. The application was, however, filed

before the High Court which was exercising revision powers. The

grounds mentioned in the application, filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of

the CPC, did not disclose any exceptional circumstance to justify the

recording of additional evidence. The grounds were flimsy and appeared

to be an attempt to embark upon a fishing or roving inquiry. Moreover, it

was not denied that the evidence sought to be recorded as additional

evidence at the revision stage was available when the trial was pending

but no attempt was made to produce it then. The remanding of the

matter and setting aside of the concurrent findings by two competent

courts was not in consonance with the legislative intent unambiguously

manifest from principles highlighted above.

The above are the reasons for our short order dated 25.05.2023.

Chief Justice

Judge

Islamabad, the

25th May, 2023

NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.