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

Section: 70,72,79&117

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 70, 72, 79 117---Suit for specific performance---Concurrent dismissal---Validity/plaintiff was under obligation to prove the alleged agreement---Witness was neither attesting witness of the alleged agreement nor present at the time of purchase of suit shop---Statement of witness was self-contradictory in cross-examination/defendants produced registered sale deed which could not be refuted by shaky inconsistent oral evidence---No evidence on record to show that registered sale deed was forged/fictitious failed to produce any document to rebut the registered sale deed---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly. Shamshad v. Arif Ashraf Khan 2010 SCMR 473 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 79---Document---Proof of execution---No document could be read as evidence unless two marginal witnesses testify---Mandatory upon party to prove the contents of the document it relies on, by producing two witnesses---Requirement of marginal witnesses was sine qua non, not merely to identify signature of executant but to prove that the executant has put signature before witnesses---Statement of scribe did not equate the testimony of attesting witnesses. Farid Bakhsh v. Jind Wadda 2015 SCMR 1044 rel. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts.70 72---Registered sale deed---Proof---Oral and documentary evidence---Preference---Scope---Documentary evidence could not be rebutted orally---It should be rebutted through document---Registered sale deed had always preference over oral evidence. Tahir Hussain Maliks case 1995 SCMR 1407 rel. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 117---Burden of proof---Discharge of---Scope---Burden of proof lay on the person who raised the same---Party was to discharge his burden and stand on his own legs to succeed. Habibullah v. Mir Manzoor Hussain 2014 MLD 303 rel. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisionary jurisdiction---Concurrent findings---Scope of revisionary jurisdiction of High Court was limited and confined to correction of jurisdictional defect, patent illegality/irregularity affecting the merit of the case and not for substantiating its own…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492