Law:

Section:

This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 26‑10‑1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jhang whereby the petitioners' application seeking to produce additional evidence was dismissed.   The relevant facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,50,000 against the respondents on 7‑7‑1992 wherein initially the respondents were proceeded against ex parte and ex parte evidence was also recorded, when the said respondents filed an application seeking to set aside the above said order. This application was accepted, resultantly the written statement having been filed issues were framed and the affirmative evidence of the petitioners was also recorded. It is a matter of record that the petitioners reserved their right for producing evidence in rebuttal. It was, thereafter, that the evidence of the respondents was also recorded and then opportunity for the production of the evidence in rebuttal was granted to the petitioners, whose counsel made a statement that no such evidence is required to be produced. The case was then adjourned for arguments when on 22‑10‑1995, the petitioners filed an application for additional evidence thereby submitting that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had been murdered and their source of income has also been burnt to ashes and that the petitioner No. 1 is a Parda Nashin lady while petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 are minors and since substantial rights of the petitioners are involved, therefore, it is necessary that petitioner No.l's statement be recorded in her capacity as next friend of the minors.   The application afore‑referred was resisted on the ground that the petitioners are estopped by their conduct to file the present application and there is no justification for filling in the lacunas in the evidence already recorded. It was submitted that the attorney of the petitioners had been prosecuting the case, who had also appeared as a witness, therefore, there is no justification for allowing the petitioner No.1 to appear in the case all over again.   The learned Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the said application vide his order, dated 26‑10‑1995 on…