Abdul Hamid, respondent No. 1, has filed a suit against the petitioners herein for permanent prohibitory injunction which is pending disposal in the
court of subJudge Surankote. Parties have led evidence in the case and when the suit was at the stage of arguments petitionersdefendants moved
an application for permitting them to produce additional evidence of one witness. Bahamatullah who, according to them, was in possession of the
suit land as owner. Plaintiff, respondent No. 1, resisted the said application and learned subJudge after hearing both the sides dismissed the
application on March 1, 1991. Aggrieved by that order petitionersdefendants have come up in revision before this court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that
Rehmatullah is the most necessary witness to be produced in the case as he was in possession of the suit land and his evidence would make the
court to come to a right conclusion. He has referred to the provisions contained in rule 17AofOrder 38 C. P C. under which the court has ample
powers to great such prayer at any stage of the case Mr. Tak, learned counsel for the respondent has, however, contended that under the above
referred provision of law party claiming production of additional evidence has to satisfy the Court that he could not, after exercise of due diligence,
produce the witness or he was not having any knowledge about that evidence but the petitioners in the case failed to establish so and the trial court
rightly dismissed their application.
Rule 17A, aforesaid, reads as under :
Where a party satisfies the court that after the exercise of due diligence any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by
him at the time when the party was leading his evidence, the court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a latter stage on such terms as
may deem to it to be just"".
It cannot be denied that abovesaid rule 17A allows the party to produce evidence evenat a latter stage but this rule, as it stands, is not mandatory
in nature and the party has to make out a good cause and has to satisfy the court of the reasons which prevented him from producing the same at
the proper stage. It is the satisfaction of the court, and if the court is satisfied, then in that case the court may permit the party to produce that
evidence even at a latter stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. In the present case, as it appears from the order of the trial court, the
witness required to be produced as additional evidence is a resident of the same area where petitionerdefendants are putting up and it was in their
knowledge about the factum of that man having been in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs, it seems, have admitted about that witness to be in
possession of the property after such question put to him in the crossexamination and in this manner it cannot be said that the defendantspetitioners
were not having any knowledge about such evidence earlier.
For the aforesaid reasons I find no ground to interfere with the order of the trial court and as such this petition is dismissed. Parties shall appear
before the Trial Court on December 16, 1991.
