AZIZULLAH SOOMRO vs MUZAFAR HUSSAIN O — 2026 CLC 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AZIZULLAH SOOMRO VS MUZAFAR HUSSAIN O.XLI, R.27 --- Production of additional evidence at appellate stage---Scope and limitations---Powers of appellate court to permit production of additional evidence---Emergence of a new facts pleaded as a ground for seeking permission to produce additional evidence---Legality---Appellate court though is conferred with powers to order for production of additional evidence under O. XLI, R. 27 of C.P.C., however, such powers are not absolute but structured by R. 27 itself and can only be exercised when the conditions specified therein are satisfied---It is also to be kept in mind that R. 27 of O. XLI of C.P.C. does not envisage providing of second opportunity to a party to adduce evidence or to rectify the negligence of aparty in the initial round to fill any lacunas---The provision of law starts with negative declaration that parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, meaning thereby, that a party enjoys a vested right to produce evidence during trial and such a right at appellate stage is qualified in nature subject to the condition enunciated under sub-Rule 1(a) of R. 27 of O. XLI of C.P.C.---For the purpose of production of additional evidence at appellate stage, the party invoking provision of law has to satisfy that the trial court refused to admit a piece of evidence which ought to have been admitted, and the emergence of a new fact would not in any manner create a ground for production of the additional evidence. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AZIZULLAH SOOMRO VS MUZAFAR HUSSAIN S.115---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction conferred under S. 115 of C.P.C. has a significant role to play in the dispensation of justice---Whenever it appears to the High Court that the subordinate court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, it will interfere to correct the wrong by rectifying the illegalities or/and irregularities in the judgments and orders to secure ends of justice. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AZIZULLAH SOOMRO VS MUZAFAR HUSSAIN S.11 & O.XLI, R.27---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss.8, 42 & 54---Production of additional evidence at appellate stage---Scope and limitations---Powers of appellate Court in allowing production of additional evidence---Interlocutory applications for additional evidence---Repeated filings---Maintainability and effect---Res judicata, principle of---applicability---The main issue in the present case was as to "whether the petitioners could be allowed to produce additional evidence in appeal proceedings" regarding the actual area and ownership of the suit property, which was decreed in favor of Respondent No.1 by the Trial Court---It was the case of the petitioners that appellate court wrongly dismissed their application under O. XLI R. 27, C.P.C., despite the evidence being crucial to determine whether respondent No.1 rightfully owned the entire 4900 square feet claimed, or only 3200 square feet as per revenue record, while the respondents contend that repeated interlocutory applications were merely a tactic to delay proceedings---Held: already similar applications for additional evidence were dismissed by the Trial Court as well as the appellate court and no further challenges were made against such dismissals, hence, same had attained finality, therefore, principle of res judicata was applicable to the subsequent applications of similar nature---appellate court though had been conferred with powers to order for production of additional evidence but such powers were not absolute and additional evidence could only be allowed in when conditions provided under O. XLI R. 27, C.P.C. were satisfied---Plea of additional evidence agitated by the petitioners did not fall within the structure of R. 27 of O. XLI of C.P.C. and appellate court dealt with the application within the premise and parameter of law and the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality requiring inter reference by the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction---Nevertheless, the petitioners in their own pleadings had admitted that the suit property was purchased in 1972 and it comprised of an area of 4900.5 sq.ft.---Civil revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AZIZULLAH SOOMRO VS MUZAFAR HUSSAIN Ss.52 & 53---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 85---Registered document---Entry in the record of rights---Presumption of truth and authenticity---Scope---Though an entry in the revenue record does not create a right of title in the suit property but the same has got a presumption of truth attached unless the contrary is proved in terms of S.53 of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967---The registered document and the entry in record of rights falls within definition of public document in terms of Art. 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, therefore, presumption of authenticity is attached to the same unless contrary comes in record. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AZIZULLAH SOOMRO VS MUZAFAR HUSSAIN S.11---Interlocutory applications---Res judicata---Principle---Applicability---Scope---The concept of res judicata debars filing of successive suits on the same subject matter between the same parties to avoid conflicting decisions---The principle of res judicata as codified in S. 11 of C.P.C. though applies to the suits and would not be applied to the interlocutory applications but the general legal principles of the res judicata would certainly apply to the decisions on interlocutory applications filed during the proceedings---If an interlocutory application is decided on merits at one stage of the proceedings, the same would operate as a bar and would preclude the party from filing the application by raising the same plea at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, however, such order would not operate as a bar if not passed on merits of the case and only express an opinion.

AZIZULLAH SOOMRO vs MUZAFAR HUSSAIN O — 2026 CLC 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC