| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 839 1992 SLD 839 = 1992 SCMR 2439 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1fA of 1991 alongwith Civil PetitionsNos.172-L of 1991 and 31 of 1992, decision dated:24-03-1992(On appeal from the judgment/order dated2Z-12-1990 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.F.A.No.160/89)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. SALEEM AKHTAR AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Civil Appeal No.1fA of 1991 alongwith Civil PetitionsNos.172-L of 1991 and 31 of 1992, decision dated:24-03-1992(On appeal from the judgment/order dated2Z-12-1990 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.F.A.No.160/89)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. SALEEM AKHTAR AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
HAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others/sISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 84 & 118
Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)
Section: 2(h)
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)----Arts.84 & 118---Maxim "Secundum allegata et probata" person alleging a fact must prove it---Plaintiffs having relied upon documents in question, were required to satisfy Court about the correctness and genuineness of same.--�[Maxim].(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--Arts. 84 & 118---Burden to prove signatures on a document--- Document in question, bearing alleged signatures of responsible Officer of respondent department---Such official denying his signatures on the document in question, alleging same to be forged---Respondent in spite of such knowledge remaining silent and taking no action for determining correctness or genuineness of those signatures---Supreme Court comparing signatures of official concerned on document in question, with his admitted signatures found them to fully resemble with each other---Documents being in possession of respondents, burden would shift to them to disprove genuineness of documents in question, and signature of its employee thereon.(c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 2(h)---Suit on basis of contract decreed by Trial Court---High Court in appeal modifying decree of Trial Court---Dispute related to question whether appellants had completed the work according to agreement executed between parties---Finding of High Court that work in question, was not completed by appellants was not warranted by documents on record---Supreme Court setting aside findings of High Court restored that of Trial Court.JUDGMENT WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J: --Haj Muhammad Khan and others, heirs of Abad Khan `A' Class Contractor, through the instant direct appeal, call in question the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22-1,2-1990 in R.FA. No.160/89, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was partially accepted, the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing their suit for a sum of Rs.5,99,901 was modified and instead a decree for Rs.37,883 only was passed in their favour with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 6-11-1974 till the date of the suit viz., 20-6-1977 and on the so calculated sum, further interest at the rate of 14% from the date of the suit till the date of payment…