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

Section: 117

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 117---Administration of justice---Plaintiff must prove his case on the strength of his evidence and could not take advantage of shortcomings of defendant's case---Where plaintiff's entire evidence was self-contradictory and was not confidence inspiring consequence thereof, would be that he must fail--�Where case was doubtful, decision must be given for defendant rather than for plaintiff.(b) Maxim------ Dubio secundum reum potius quam secundum actorem litom dori opertet"---Applicability---Where case was doubtful, decision should be given for defendant rather than for plaintiff---Maxim would be applicable particularly in those cases where plaintiffs entire evidence was self-�contradictory and was not confidence inspiring.(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)------Art. 2 (4)--Existence of right or liability -Mode of proof---Party seeking from a Court as to any right or liability, must prove -all facts which he alleges and on which existence of that right or liability depends and if he fails to prove existence of those facts which constitute the right or liability he is seeking to enforce, he must fail---For binding a person executing any deed there should not only be a materially executed document but same must also speak of mental equation of executor with the other party arrived at mutually for the purpose---Where plaintiff had failed to establish and substantiate his claim by any cogent evidence, his suit must fail.JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the judgment/decree of the learned District Judge, Abbottabad dated 30-11-1991 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 1 with the remarks that the share of Badar Zaman petitioner herein, would be to the extent of 26/48. 2. Sultan Khan respondent No. 1 brought a suit for possession with regard to Khasra No. 1266 measuring 7 Kanals, 4 Marlas situated within the limits of village Pawa, Tehsil Abbottabad on the basis of cancellation of perpetual lease and also for recovery of Rs3,600 from defendant No. 3, petitioner herein, and recovery of Rs-5,600 from defendant No. 4 being the rent and damages caused to the…