Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11,115,XLI,27

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 8,42,54

Law: Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: XVII,52,53

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 85

(a)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----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…