1. An application filed by the plaintiff for producing additional evidence after both the parties had closed their evidence, was rejected by the trial Court on 23/05/1991 which has been challenged by the plaintiff in this revision petition. In the application two prayers were made; 1) that the plaintiff be permitted to appear as his own witness; and (2) that copies of two documents : (a) copy of jamabandi, (b) copy of pedigree table from the revenue record be allowed to be produced. The stand taken up by the plaintiff was that inadvertently plaintiffs evidence was closed without the plaintiff having appeared as a witness. With respect to the two documents, it was asserted that they were relied upon in the list of reliance placed by the plaintiff. At the time of closure of plaintiffs evidence, statement of the counsel for the plaintiff was recorded wherein several documents were tendered into evidence and admitted as such. It was due to inadvertence that the two documents could not be admitted into evidence.

2. Issues were framed in the suit on December 10, 1985. On 3/06/1986 an additional issue was framed. The suit was for possession of 114/349 share of 34 Kanals 7 Marlas o