Public Document

Suit instituted by the wife/respondent against the successors of her husband/petitioners was decreed, but the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed

Validity

Presumption of truth attached to the Nikahnama, being a pubic document, was rebuttable, as respondent failed to prove that her Nikahnama with predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a genuine document

First and fourth copies of Nikahnama were never produced and admittedly the copy of Nikahnama with the respondent, containing the date of registration after the death of husband of the respondent, was brought on record, which implied that the Nikahnama brought on record by the respondent was never registered in accordance with law, hence, the presumption of truth was not attached to the same, therefore, the petitioners were not obligated to dislodge the presumption of truth attached to the Nikahnama

Obligation of a husband to pay the dower is applicable in cases where the registered Nikahnama carrying presumption of truth is brought on record, however, it was not helpful to the respondent, on account of distinguishable facts

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Public document is presumed to be genuine and its attested or certified copy is relevant and admissible in evidence unless contrary is proved rebutting such presumption completely

No requirement of law exists to examine author or attesting witness to prove existence of a public document

Prosecution was not obliged to examine any such person in proof of an official document

Document in investigation is collected/obtained under a seizure memo and provision of S.94, Cr.P.C. is relevant in such respect, which empowers investigating officer to seize or collect a document required for investigation purpose

Document purporting to be record of memorandum of evidence can be produced under Art. 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in Court by a witness and the same has a presumption of genuineness attached to it

To appreciate a document in a criminal case as an admissible piece of evidence could not be identified with regime applied to a document for such purpose in civil case in respect of a private document

Claim of a party in civil proceedings was decided on preponderance of probability and all that was necessary in a civil case was to show that proof adduced in support of a fact was such that it could make a prudent mind act upon it

In criminal case, prosecution had to prove guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and his conviction could be recorded by Court only when it was satisfied that possibility of his innocence, on the basis of evidence adduced against him was completely ruled out

High Court declined to interfere in production of photostat copies of record during trial

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Succession certificate was issued in favour of legal heirs of deceased, whereafter an application for impleadment of a party was moved with the contention that the minor being an adopted son had no entitlement in the legacy of deceased

Trial Court recalled succession certificate issued in favour of petitioners with the direction to the parties to approach the civil Court for redressal of their grievance

Validity

Deceased had left behind the widow and a minor son as legal heirs

Parentage of minor son was supported by the record of National Database and Registration Authority and passport issued by Ministry of Interior Government

Presumption of truth was attached to the official record unless proved otherwise

Presumption with regard to validity of public documents would carry weight unless it had been rebutted

Courts below had failed to exercise jurisdiction properly and appreciated the facts of the case in accordance with law

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and succession certificate was restored

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Respondents being sisters of deceased filed application for conducting DNA test of minor son of deceased with the contention that he was adopted son and was not entitled for inheritance

Petition for conducting DNA test and objections were dismissed and succession certificate was issued in favour of petitioners

Validity

Documents produced on behalf of petitioners were official which had not been disputed by the respondents

Respondents should have sought declaration and cancellation of said documents before raising objections to the legal status of minor after death of his mother

Legitimacy of a child or his status as son of deceased could not be disproved by any oral evidence as against documentary evidence from official record which was a public document

Civil Court in presence of documentary evidence could not hold that the child was not born from the marriage of the parties

Father, in the present case, had not challenged that deceased was not mother of the minor son

Respondents had failed to challenge or rebut the evidence of official record of National Database and Registration Authority and other evidence before the Trial Court

DNA test could not be a sole proof of paternity of a child

Trial Court had rightly refused request of respondents for conducting DNA test, in circumstances

Respondents had made a frivolous challenge to the paternity of a child to deprive him from inheritances

Appeal was dismissed in, circumstances.

Judicial inquiry report prepared by a Tribunal or Commission appointed under the [Punjab] Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969

Said report was not a public document in terms of Art. 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Whenever execution or validity of a registered document was denied then such document would lose sanctity of being presumed to be correct

Veracity of such document would depend upon quantum and quality of evidence to be produced to prove its execution

Only restricted presumption would attach that registration proceedings were regularly and honestly carried out by the attesting officer

Said presumption attached to its certificate was always rebutable

Whenever execution of an instrument was denied then such presumption was deduced to have been sufficiently rebutted

Onus to prove that document was executed and transaction did take place would lie upon the person who had alleged said execution

Presumption in favour of a registered instrument did not dispense with the necessity of showing that person who admitted the execution before the attesting officer was not an imposter but the same person.

Both the courts below had relied upon a document i.e. duty roaster of the department which was not produced by the plaintiff while appearing in the witness box

Duty roaster placed on record by the plaintiff was not a public document

Said document had not been produced/adduced by the scribe or signatory of the same or the official of the department while appearing in the court

Such type of document could not be relied upon by the courts unless same was proved according to law

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the parties

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside

Trial Court was directed to decide the case within a specified period.

Pakistan passport is public document and presumption of truth is attached to it, and same can be believed if produced without any objection.

Official documents carried presumption of correctness.

Certified copy of a public document was a proof of the contents of the same and a presumption of genuineness was attached to the said copies if not rebutted otherwise.

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner of suit property on the basis of "transfer order" whereas defendants contended that suit property was not evacuee and Settlement and Rehabilitation department had no authority to transfer the same to the plaintiff

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Suit property was an evacuee property which was transferred to the plaintiff

Final "transfer order" had been issued against the price

"Transfer order" was still in field and had not been cancelled or set aside by any competent court of law

Plaintiff had deposited the entire auction money

Appellate Court had wrongly found that auction was not finalized as it was not the domain of the said court

Appellate Court could not reopen the matter

Defendants had not filed any suit for cancellation of "transfer order" before any competent court of law

Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the transfer order

Certified copy of a public document was a proof of the contents of the same and a presumption of genuineness was attached to the said copies if not rebutted otherwise

Plaintiff was owner in possession of suit property

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Application submitted by petitioner for supply of certified copies of inquiry proceedings dismissed by District Judge on the basis that only preliminary inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted, whereas orders were passed for a regular inquiry, therefore, inquiry had not yet been concluded and at such stage petitioner had no right to inspect any document relating to inquiry proceedings

Contention on behalf of petitioner was that in terms of Art.85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 a 'judicial inquiry' came within the definition of a public document; that in view of Art.87 of the said Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 every public officer having custody of a public document, which a person had a right to inspect, should give that person on demand a copy of such document

Validity

Inquiry conducted by a judicial officer regarding missing of a file or negligence or omission/commission of an act by an official of the District Court could not be termed as a judicial inquiry, rather, such inquiry was conducted in pursuance of the administrative order passed by the authority concerned

Part B, Chapter 5, Rules and Orders High Court (Lahore), Volume V provided that a copy or translation of a judicial record might be granted in the manner prescribed by the rules to any person who was legally entitled to receive it, whereas in the present case, inquiry proceedings, which had not yet been concluded, could not be termed as judicial record

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Attested copy of public document is admissible in evidence without any objection in terms of Arts.47 and 88 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Public document could not be ignored merely because the same was not confronted and was not produced in Court within seven days

Intrinsic value of a public document was to be examined on its contents

Where it was not proved that copy of a public document was a false document nor it had been shown that Government functionaries had any special interest to manipulate the same as to deprive any person from his property, and the party concerned, in cross-examination, had admitted its contents, there was no need for getting such document confronted.

Public Document Settlement deed" re property of Ruler of Kharan (Baluchistan States)-Verified by Agent to GovernorGeneral and deposited in Tehsildar's Court-Treated as public document-Certified copy, held, admissible-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 74.

Admissibility-(Cyprus case).