Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2722 2012 SLD 2722 2012 YLR 2944
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1884 of 1999, heard on 6th October, 2011
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J
Malik Saeed Hassan and Mrs. Tayyaba Ramzan Chaudhry for Petitioner. Messrs Mian Hameed-ud-Din Kasuri, Jehangir A. Jhojha and Ch. Muhammad Luqman for
Respondents

SAHAB KHAN

VS

MUHAMMAD BASHIR UD DIN and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art.61---Sale agreement, execution of---Proof---Witnesses deposed that both signatures and thumb-impressions on such agreement were made by parties thereto in their presence, while only signatures existed thereon---Validity---Evidence of such witnesses was recorded after five years of such agreement, thus, forgetting something out of whole ,scene was part of human nature---People commonly used to take signatures as both signatures and thumb-impression or mere signatures or thumb-impression---Such witnesses had consistently deposed that such agreement was executed and signed in their presence---Such statement of witnesses could not be disbelieved merely on basis of typical wording commonly used in Pakistan---Execution of such agreement was proved. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Courts are bound to decide cases as per law and procedure, so that miscarriage of justice can be avoided. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arta 117---Document produced in evidence by plaintiff alleged by defendant to be result of fraud---Burden of proof--Burden to prove such fraud would lie on, defendant. (d) Witness--- ----Defendant's witness admitting to have murdered brother-in-law of plaintiff---Held: Animus of such witness against plaintiff could not be ruled out. (e) Proof--- ----Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs, thus, would be responsible to prove his case beyond any shadow of doubt. (f) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 2(4)---Fact said to be proved, determination of---Test. The circumstances of each case must determine whether a prudent man -ought to act upon the supposition that the facts exist from which a liability is to be inferred. What. circumstances will constitute proof can never be the subject of a general definition. But one thing is clear that in civil cases what is required or considered sufficient is preponderance of probability, while in criminal cases, any of the serious consequences of an erroneous condemnation both to the accused and the society, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the minds of the tribunals as reasonable man beyond all reasonable doubts.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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