Proof

Appellant did not personally send the notice, instead he handed it over to informer, who did not appear to confirm that any notice was dispatched

Notice was not sent through registered cover acknowledgment due, as specifically required under the statute

Such procedural lapses rendered the Talb-i-Ishhad ineffective in law.

Appellants / plaintiffs assailed gift deed, 27 years after its execution in favour of respondent / defendant, on the plea of fraud

Validity

Appellants / plaintiffs alleged fraud and they had to give particulars of fraud and also provide sufficient material and evidence to support such allegation, whereafter, the burden shifted upon respondent / defendant to prove genuineness of transaction allegedly based on fraud

In absence of any particulars, material or evidence to support allegation of fraud, lawful presumption attached to official record in the shape of gift, statement of donors and continued possession of suit land with respondent / defendant could not be ignored

Long standing entries in revenue record under Article 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 especially in register of record of rights, carried presumptions of truth and could not be controverted by mere oral evidence unless proved otherwise by sufficient and convincing evidence

Judge in Chambers of High Court, after careful scrutiny of facts and evidence produced by parties and with proper understanding of legal positions had rightly held that appellants / plaintiffs failed to establish fraudulent gift and mutation of suit land in favour of respondent / defendant in revenue record

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, as the same was un-exceptionable

Appeals were dismissed.

Suit of respondents/plaintiffs was decreed, however, the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners/defendants were dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional Court, respectively

Validity

Basic ingredients of a valid gift are: offer, acceptance and delivery of possession

No descriptions of making of offer as to gifting out of the disputed property to the petitioners by the donor, acceptance thereof by them, venue and names of witnesses in whose presence such transaction took place, had been given, which were necessary to be pleaded and proved

Even the same had not been deposed during evidence either by the petitioners or their witnesses

A party cannot lead any evidence beyond its pleadings

No illegality was found in the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court as well as judgments and decrees passed by the trial and first Appellate Court warranting interference by Supreme Court

Thus, no case for grant of leave was made out

Leave was refused, in circumstances.

Petitioner (the purported buyer and landlady) claiming to have purchased the demised property from respondent No.1 (purported tenant) through agreement to sell

Effect

Brief of the matter was that the respondents "FN" and "FS" were married in 2004, and "FS" had earlier purchased a house which became the "demised premises"; over the years, multiple agreements to sell were executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 "FN", followed by a civil suit filed by the petitioner (purported buyer and landlady) in 2008 that was decreed in her favour upon conceding statement of respondent No.1 "FN", leading to a registered sale deed

Thereafter, applications under Section 12(2) C.P.C. were filed by "FS" and "PN", resulting in the decree and sale deed being set aside through order dated 25.02.2016, which order was later set aside on 26.08.2020, reviving the earlier decree and sale deed; meanwhile, in 2017 the petitioner (purported buyer and landlady) filed eviction proceedings under Section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, claiming respondent No.1 was her tenant, which were dismissed by the rent controller and the appellate court on the ground that landlord-tenant relationship was not proved, and thereafter, the High Court upheld these concurrent findings

The legal issue before Supreme Court was as to"whether the petitioner had established the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship so as to justify eviction under Section 15 of the 2009 Act"?

Held: The rent controller as well as the appellate court and the High Court concurrently held that neither had the petitioner (the purported buyer and landlord) been able to prove the existence of such the agreement to sell, nor the payment of rent at any material stage by respondent No.1 (purported tenant) to her

The conclusions drawn by three courts below did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence and therefore warranted no interference

Eviction could not be sought before the rent controller without establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant

It was emphasized that the relationship of landlord and tenant usually came into existence as a result of a tenancy agreement

One of the most important circumstances from which inference as to the existence of such relationship could be drawn was payment of rent

The fact that no rent was paid by the person in possession of the premises would negate the existence of such relationship

Payment of rent was not just a normal incidence of tenancy but a sine qua non for the relationship of landlord and tenant

To show that respondent No.1 was the petitioner's tenant, the latter had to prove that respondent No.1 either undertook or was bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of the demised premises

This could have been done through the production of rent receipts or witnesses deposing as to the payment of rent in their presence to respondent No.1

However, the non-payment of rent in the presence of a rent agreement, oral or written, would not by itself be sufficient to hold that there did not exist such relationship

The existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant could come into existence on execution of a rent agreement

The petitioner (the purported buyer and landlady) did not produce witnesses in whose presence a tenancy agreement with respondent No.1 (purported tenant) was created

There was no reason to interfere with the three concurrent orders / judgments passed by the rent controller, appellate court and the High Court

Leave to appeal was declined and the petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Onus to prove the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is on the landlord who seeks the eviction of a tenant.

Brief facts of the matter were that the appellant (landlady) filed an eviction petition before the rent tribunal seeking respondent No.3's (tenant) eviction

Rent tribunal allowed eviction and also directed payment of rent arrears

Respondent No.3 (tenant) filed an appeal and appellate court set aside the rent tribunal's findings by holding that the appellant (landlady) had not proved a landlord-tenant relationship

Against the appellate judgment the appellant filed a constitutional petition which was dismissed and the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenged that dismissal

Held: Section 8 of the 2007 Ordinance provided that an existing landlord and tenant as soon as possible, but not later than two years from the date of coming into force the said Ordinance, had to bring the tenancy in conformity with the provisions of the said Ordinance, whereas, Section 9 of the said Ordinance provided inter alia that if a tenancy did not conform with the provisions of the said Ordinance the rent tribunal could not entertain an application under the said Ordinance on behalf of the landlord, unless he had deposited a fine equivalent to ten percent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the government treasury

Appellant(landlady) and respondent No. 3 (tenant) had until 16.11.2010, to enter the particulars of the tenancy with the rent registrar so as to make it compliant with the requirements of Section 5(2) of the 2007 Ordinance

This requirement, remained unfulfilled till the present day

The vital question that needed to be determined was whether as a result of such non-compliance, the eviction petition was to be dismissed at the alter or whether an opportunity was to be given to the eviction petitioner to cure such defect

When the eviction petition was filed on 09.01.2008, the two-year grace period within which the tenancy agreement was required to be presented before the rent registrar had not lapsed

Omission to present the tenancy agreement before the rent registrar in accordance with Section 5(2) of the 2007 Ordinance within the two-year grace period could neither render the party seeking eviction of a tenant liable to pay the penalty/fine nor could the eviction petition be rejected on this ground

In the present case, the two-year grace period expired on 16.11.2009 and by that time, the appellant's eviction petition had not been decided

It was at this stage that either the rent tribunal could have required the appellant (landlady) to bring the tenancy in conformity with the requirements under Section 5(2) or Respondent No. 3 (tenant) could have taken objection as to the non-compliance with the requirements of the said provisions

Neither was done

Once such omission on the appellant's (landlady's) part was brought to the notice of the High Court, it ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to cure the defect by paying the fine in terms of Section 9(a) of the said Ordinance

Impugned judgment of the High Court was not sustainable on this score

With respect to the tenant/respondent No. 3 claiming to be the owner of the rented property, if and when he would succeed to get a decree from the civil court he could have the same executed by getting the possession of the rented property, however, until then he (tenant) could not arrogate to himself the status of the owner

Appellate court erred by requiring the appellant (landlady) to defend her title in the civil suit and unlawfully made this the basis for setting aside the eviction order passed by rent tribunal

It was deemed not proper to remand the matter to the rent tribunal

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court as well as the judgment passed by the appellate court were set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate court instead of the rent tribunal to decide Respondent No.3's (tenant) appeal after affording him opportunity to pay the fine contemplated by Section 9(a) of the 2007 Ordinance for not having shown compliance with the requirements of Section 5(2) of the said Ordinance

Present appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Section 5(1) of the 2007 Ordinance mandated that a landlord shall not rent out a premises to a tenant except by a tenancy agreement, whereas Section 5(2) required a landlord to present the tenancy agreement before the rent registrar

Additionally, Section 5(3) required the rent registrar to enter the particulars of the tenancy in a register, affix his official seal on the tenancy agreement, retain a copy thereof and return the original tenancy agreement to the landlord

It is the entry of the tenancy agreement in the office of the rent registrar which Section 5(5) of the said Ordinance treated as proof of the relationship of landlord and tenant.

Petitioner after acquittal in criminal case desired to have proceedings under section 188 P.P.C. initiated against complainant of that case

Plea raised by petitioner was that complainant had given false information to police on the basis of which FIR was registered against him

Validity

Information laid before public servant with bona fide belief and knowledge of it being true cannot be termed as false, unless it is proved in accordance with law through judicial proceedings

Such information can be termed as 'not proved' and not 'false' and the same cannot attract penal provision of Section 182, P.P.C.

Provision of Section 182, P.P.C. can only be initiated by public servant before whom false information was laid, which resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings and was found to be false through judicial process

Such penal provisions cannot be invoked in cases where complainant could not prove the allegations by producing sufficient evidence or material in support of such allegation before judicial forum

There was no finding of Lower Appellate Court to the effect that information laid before police by complainant was false

There was no opinion of investigating officer and finding by any judicial forum holding that information laid before police by complainant was false, thus, provisions of Section 182, P.P.C. were not attracted

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

When a document which is the foundation of claim of a party is never produced in evidence, such document remains wholly unproved and mere reference (to it) during cross-examination cannot substitute the strict proof required by law.

Dispute under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (the DMMA) being governed by family law is essentially a civil dispute pertaining to the dissolution of the marriage and same is to be assessed on civil standards of evidence

Woman can obtain a decree for dissolution of marriage provided she can establish one or more of the grounds stipulated in section 2 of DMMA on the balance of probabilities

Where a woman invokes the ground of cruelty, it becomes a factual matter to be determined on the basis of evidence to be assessed according to the civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities meaning that there must be sufficient evidence to show that a fact is more likely to be true than not

Therefore, the family court is required to look at the woman's testimony narrated in her own words and supported by surrounding circumstances

The standard of proof applied under the DMMA being the balance of probabilities means that the Court must decide whose side of the story is more likely to be true, that is more probable than the other, while examining the evidence and testimony of the woman, the circumstances she describes, and the impact of the conduct on her ability to continue marital life in the context of the defense he sets out by way of evidence

The law does not condition woman's entitlement on being able to demonstrate injuries or police reports or bring medical reports to support every slap or instance of emotional or mental trauma

In considering the evidence, the court must remember that there is no single definition of cruelty

What may be cruelty in one marriage may not be cruelty in another

The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon the upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system

The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances on the balance of probabilities

The essential factor being the impact of the behavior termed as cruelty on the life of the woman.

It was incumbent upon petitioner, within the scope of S.144 (1)(b) of Elections Act, 2017 to provide full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or other illegal act alleged to have been committed including names of parties who were alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and date and palace of commission of such practice or act

Instead of meeting such legal requirement by identifying voters whose details were allegedly altered in Pictorial Voter Lists, the petitioner threw excessively wider net and resorted to unfounded accusations against polling staff

Even witnesses produced by petitioner failed to name a single member of polling staff or any other individual who according to them had committed rigging during election process

Petitioner neither in his petition nor at any stage during the trial made any effort to get forensic analysis of thumb impression of Election Officials

In case petitioner intended to prove beyond reasonable that Form-45, he had been relying upon, bore original thumb impression of Election Officials, he could have filed specific application in such regard or should have asserted such fact in his petition but he did not do so

Election Tribunal declined to interfere in the election result, as there existed no ground for declaring election of respondent / returned candidate void

Election petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Mere reliance on long-standing entries is of no avail when correctness and legality of those entries through independent, cogent and unimpeachable evidence is not proved.

Brief facts of the matter were that the appellant instituted a civil suit for recovery of damages against the respondent (appellant's employer), alleging unlawful termination of service and consequential harm; the Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit, against which the present 'regular first appeal' was filed before the High Court

Held: Appellant himself admitted that the company never published any advertisement nor issued any letter to dealers or third parties containing adverse or defamatory remarks about him

Additionally, he admitted that the respondents/defendants did not express any negative or damaging comments concerning his character or conduct

Respondents/defendants could not be held personally liable for any damages allegedly arising from their actions

If any liability were to arise, it could be the company that could potentially be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees or agents, provided that such damages were properly pleaded and substantiated by the appellant/plaintiff

In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff had no valid cause of action against the individual respondents

The appellant failed to bring a claim against the company, therefore, no claim for damages could be sustained against the respondents in their personal capacities

In view of the foregoing and in the absence of any cogent or corroborative evidence to demonstrate actual loss of reputation or mental suffering, the claim for such damages remained unproven and was therefore legally untenable

Present appeal being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Alleged agreement to sell lacked mandatory requirements under Arts.17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and the same could not be used as evidence

Continuation of proceedings before Trial Court would be nothing but futile exercise of abuse of process of Court, which could not be allowed at the expense of public time, which should be consumed by Court meaningfully in other matters requiring its urgent attention and serious consideration

High Court set aside orders passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court and rejected the plaint filed by respondent / plaintiff

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Plea raised by petitioner / University was that it was a charitable institution and was exempted from deduction of Zakat

Validity

Petitioner / University was established for paramount national interest to establish a center for advancement of education and learning of internationally acknowledged standards to the talented and deserving students of Pakistan

Petitioner / University was neither alleviated institution to the category of a charity nor there existed any operative provision in Foundation University Ordinance, 2002 for its declaration to be a charitable institution

Liability to Zakat was attached to prescribed assets held by a person or institutions defined under the law, subject to only those exemptions, which were expressly provided under S.24 of Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980

Nature and character of petitioner / University, whether statutory, chartered, public service or otherwise, did not by itself create immunity, unless such immunity was grounded in the statute which the petitioner / University had failed to bring on record

Under the law, where the Legislature intended exemption, it had done so explicitly

Absence of such expression must be construed as deliberate

Petitioner / University did not place on record any specific document, nor pointed out any specific provision in its parent statute or in Foundation University Ordinance, 2002 granting exemption from Zakat liability

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as the petitioner / University failed to demonstrate any illegality in the letter issued by authorities holding petitioner / University liable to deduction of Zakat

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Unauthorized access to information system or data, unauthorized copying or transmission of data, electronic forgery, electronic fraud, unauthorized use of identity information, cheating, forgery and abetment

Bail, grant of

Beneficiary of transaction

Proof

Case of further inquiry

Accused persons were involved in acts of electronic financial fraud and forgery, specifically in the unlawful acquisition of funds from both national and international bank accounts

It was to be determined after recording of evidence by Trial Court as to who utilized the accounts to perpetrate alleged offences

No conclusive evidence was gathered by investigating agency with regard to such aspect of prosecution case

Due to absence of sufficient material at bail stage to connect accused persons with offences alleged against them, the matter had become one of further inquiry into their guilt in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Appellant / plaintiff company was aggrieved of dismissal of its suit seeking recovery of money on the basis of five cheques valuing Rs.1,496,480/

Validity

There was not only business relationship acknowledged, but cheques in question could not have been issued merely as security

Cheques in question represented subsisting and admitted liability arising from services actually rendered

Appellant/plaintiff, was entitled to claim entire sum covered by the cheques, or that amount which had been acknowledged through letter dated 06-10-2007 exhibited by appellant / plaintiff which had confined its suit only to Rs.934,491.90, a figure consistent with reconciled balance after adjusting payments made by respondent / defendant

Such fortified bona fides of the claim of appellant/plaintiff had demonstrated that Trial Court failed to correctly appreciate evidence on record

On proper appraisal of record and issues which were core point of determination, suit should have been decided in favour of appellant / plaintiff

Admitted issuance of cheques coupled with the established course of dealings proved the claim of appellant / plaintiff

Respondent / defendant failed to substantiate its defence, hence, Trial Court's conclusion was legally flawed

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and decreed the suit of appellant / plaintiff

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Suit for cancellation of general power of attorney and subsequent mutations along with declaration of inheritance rights by the widow

General attorney selling land to his real brother

Legality

Permission of principal, requirement of

Execution of general power of attorney, dispute over

Proof

Onus

Beneficiary of the power of attorney had to prove its validity

Production of two attesting witnesses, requirement of

Non-production, consequences of

“GN” was the original owner of land and had two wives, “SB” and “NB”

From his first marriage with “SB” respondent/plaintiff and respondent /defendant were born, while from his second marriage with “NB” petitioners Nos.2 to 5/defendants were born

“GN” passed away in 2006

During the process of inheritance, the husband of “SB” (respondent/defendant) discovered that before “GN's” death, some land had already been transferred through sale and gift mutations by petitioner No.2/defendant while acting as attorney of his father “GN”, in favour of his brother i.e. petitioner No.3/defendant

“SB” then filed a suit seeking cancellation of these transactions and declaration of her inheritance rights

Issue was centered upon “whether the mutations in question were against law and facts having been passed with connivance of revenue authorities; whether plaintiff was entitled for decree for declaration along with consequential relief and whether power of attorney in favor of petitioner No.2 was bogus and ineffective”?

Held: Respondent/ plaintiff by producing trustworthy, reliable oral as well as documentary evidence substantially proved her case as per law

At the same time the burden to prove the execution of alleged power of attorney as well as valid incorporation of gift deed and sale mutations in question was shifted upon the petitioners/defendants to prove the validity of the said testimonies

The entire lis hinged upon the proof and validity of the power of attorney and the beneficiary of alleged power of attorney was required to prove the validity and execution of Ex.D-1 by producing the subregistrar who registered the said document but the said material witness was not produced and even the patwari and tehsildar who entered and sanctioned the alleged sale as well as gift mutations were also not produced

The petitioners/defendants also did not produce any attesting witness of gift mutation

Thus, non-production of above said material witnesses amounted to withholding of the best evidence and it was legally presumed that had the said witnesses been produced in the evidence, they would have deposed unfavorably against the petitioners/defendants, as such presumption under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 clearly operated against them

Moreover, power of attorney was attested by only one witness whereas under Art.17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 it was mandatory to produce two attesting witness and in case of any discord both attesting witnesses were required to give testimony in the court as required by Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Therefore, valid execution of the said document was not proved as per law

Moreover, if one witness had passed away the petitioners/defendants did not make any effort to prove the alleged power of attorney through the mode prescribed under Art.80 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Even otherwise, alleged power of attorney was based on fraud and misrepresentation as such any subsequent transaction made on the basis of said document would have had no validity which were devoid of creating any rights and would have had no sanctity in the eyes of law

In absence of any solid foundation, the superstructure so built would have automatically crumbled down

Moreover, fraud vitiated most solemn proceedings and any edifice so raised on the basis of such fraudulent transaction, stood automatically dismantled and any ill-gotten gain achieved by fraudster could not be validated under any norms of law

Moreover, no specific permission of the principle “GN” was taken since petitioner/defendant (alleged general attorney) transferred land to his real brother

Trial Court failed to appreciate legal and factual aspects of the case and dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff whereas appellate court after discussing the facts as well as evidence through a well-reasoned judgment and decree had rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent and decreed her suit as prayed for

Further, in case of conflict between judgment between appellate court and Trial Court, the judgment of the appellate court was to be followed unless finding of appellate court was not supported by evidence

Civil revision being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Present appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the district court whereby a suit under O.XXXVII R.1 & 2, C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- was decreed in favor of the respondent/plaintiff

The suit had been instituted on the basis of a pronote and receipt for the said amount

During the transaction, a cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- was issued, which was dishonored, leading to registration of an FIR

The suit was initially decreed, which decree was later set aside in civil revision and the matter was remanded for fresh decision

After remand, a written statement was filed, issues were framed, and evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was recorded, while the appellant/defendant declined to produce evidence

Upon completion of proceedings, the Trial Court again decreed the suit, giving rise to the present appeal

Held: Appellant/defendant admitted the execution of pronote and receipt in his written statement and even he had not produced any iota of evidence to establish that pronote was blank and even he himself did not appear in the witness box despite availing opportunities to produce his evidence

Respondent/ plaintiff established execution of pronote as well as receipt and even execution of the same was admitted, whereas, plea of appellant/defendant regarding issuance of blank pronote was worthless in absence of trustworthy evidence

Under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 a legal presumption of issuance of negotiable instrument (pronote) against consideration was attached to said document and appellant/defendant was placed under strict obligation to dislodge said presumption by producing affirmative, trustworthy and corroborative evidence but no such defence was available on record

Present appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Hearsay evidence has a narrow scope of intrinsic value until and unless the said asserted fact has been proved through other corroborative and independent evidence, whereas Art.71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 also requires direct oral evidence and ousts the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

Briefly, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession through specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell viz. the suit property; the petitioner/defendant denied executing any such agreement and contested the claim; the suit and connected proceedings travelled through trial and appeal, including remand directions to re-record certain witnesses, culminating in the trial court judgment and decree and then the appellate judgment and decree which set aside the Trial Court's decision and decreed the respondent's suit, leading the petitioner to file the present civil revision under S.115, C.P.C. challenging the legality of the appellate decree

Pivotal question requiring determination before the High Court was as to “whether the agreement to sell in question, being disputed, was proved in accordance with Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 so as to lawfully sustain a decree for specific performance/possession, and if not, whether the appellate judgment and decree called for interference in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115, C.P.C.?”

Held: The petitioner unambiguously denied the execution of any such agreement

Under Art.17 read with Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, plaintiff/respondent was duty bound to prove the genuineness of the said document through cogent, confidence inspiring and independent evidence

Out of two witnesses, only one witness was examined and the petitioner failed to produce the other marginal witness of agreement

No sufficient reason for his non-production was brought on record

Even the respondent/plaintiff did not make any efforts to summon him through Court

The provisions of Art.79 were mandatory and non-compliance thereof rendered agreement as inadmissible in evidence

The evidence produced by the respondent/plaintiff was full of contradictions and on the basis of such type of evidence no decree for specific performance could be passed especially when the respondent/plaintiff had badly failed to prove genuineness of a valid agreement to sell in his favour, therefore, the Appellant Court erred in law while allowing the appeal of respondent/plaintiff and decreeing the suit

Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court was a result of non-reading and misreading of evidence and same was set aside

Present civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.

The command of the Art.79 is vividly discernible which elucidates that in order to prove an instrument which by law is required to be attested, it has to be proved by two attesting witnesses, if they are alive and otherwise are not incapacitated and are subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence

The powerful expression “shall not be used as evidence” until the requisite number of attesting witnesses have been examined to prove its execution is couched in the negative, which depicts the clear and unquestionable intention of the legislature, barring and placing a complete prohibition for using in evidence any such document, which is either not the eventuality those were conceived by Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, itself not as a substitute.

When vendee fails to produce one of the two attesting witnesses and no sufficient reason for his non-production is brought on record and also no effort was made to have him summoned through the Court, in this way the vendee/beneficiary of the agreement withholds best piece of evidence

Hence, presumption would be drawn that if he had produced that witness in evidence, he might have deposed against him.

In order to prove a valid agreement to sell, it is the duty of the beneficiary to prove its genuineness by producing its marginal witnesses.

Suit filed by respondent / plaintiff was decreed against appellant / defendant as the cheque given by him was dishonored on presentation

Contention of appellant / defendant was that the cheque issued by him was of guarantee

Validity

There are three distinct parties in a contract of guarantee: the "surety," the "principal debtor," and the "creditor"

Appellant/defendant did not qualify either as a surety or a third-party guarantor but he squarely fell within the definition of the "principal debtor"

Subject cheque, was a negotiable instrument under S. 6 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was governed by the statutory presumptions enshrined in S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

No material illegality, irregularity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence was pointed out by appellant/defendant

Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly applied settled legal principles in decreeing the suit under O.XXXVII, C.P.C.

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decreed passed against appellant / defendant

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant / defendant contended that the agreement pertained to year 2005 and after such long time the agreement could not be performed as it was a discretionary relief

Validity

Discretion is required to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and the terms of relevant agreement

Exercise must not be arbitrary and has to be based on sound and equitable reasons

Respondent / plaintiff instituted suit one day after the cut-off date

Respondent / plaintiff through his evidence remained successful in demonstrating with certainty that he had capacity to perform the agreement

Concerned branch manager produced ledger in Trial Court to show that through banking instrument respondent / plaintiff withdrew balance consideration on relevant date

Such evidence left no doubt that respondent / plaintiff had capacity to perform the agreement

Willingness of respondent / plaintiff was reflected from prompt and immediate institution of suit and by that time no prejudice was caused to appellant / defendant but somehow he himself kept on delaying the matter

Both the Courts below had rightly exercised their discretion to grant the relief

Second appeal could only lie in High Court on the grounds that the decision was contrary to law; failure to determine some material issue of law, and substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or law for the time being in force which could possibly have emanated an error or slip-up in determination or decisiveness of the case on merits

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as there was no illegality

Second appeal was dismissed.

Unless and until anyone of the grounds is not proved, marriage cannot be dissolved, meaning thereby, to get the dissolution of marriage, the party is required to allege and prove the allegation of adultery.

Petitioners / tenants were aggrieved of eviction orders passed by Rent Controller, which was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Held: To circumvent repercussions of default, a tenant cannot refute landlord's ownership

Petitioners/tenants acknowledged their induction as tenants in demised shops, thus, under Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, they were estopped from denying title of respondent / landlord

Tenant is only permitted to dispute title/relationship of landlord of the individual who inducted him as tenant by first relinquishing possession of the premises to the landlord

Petitioners/tenants were obligated to return possession of the premises to respondent / landlord

Petitioners/tenants during cross-examination, conceded in their respective testimonies that they had not paid monthly rent to respondent / landlord post year 2004, nor had they deposited rent in Court since year 2007

Conclusions reached by both the lower Courts were predicated on petitioners'/tenants' admission of willful default in payment of rent

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings which had been thoroughly examined by two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

The first element is that there must be an agreement express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for purchase of the property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who has to make payment of the consideration, and second element required to be proved is that transaction was actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not party.

Where the execution of a document is admitted by the executant himself, the examination of attesting witness is not necessary.

Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 outlines the procedure for proving the execution of a document required by law to be attested

According to this provision, if a document must be attested by law, it cannot be used as evidence until at least two attesting witnesses have been called to prove its execution

This provision aims to ensure the authenticity and validity of attested documents by requiring the testimony of witnesses who can confirm their execution

However, there is an exception to this rule

It is not necessary to call an attesting witness to prove the execution of any document (except for a will) that has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908

This means that for registered documents, the registration itself serves as sufficient proof of execution, and the testimony of attesting witnesses is not required unless the execution of the document is specifically denied by the person who purportedly executed it

In cases where the execution of the document is disputed, attesting witnesses must be called to provide evidence to resolve the matter.

Question was as to whether the agreement could be proved by just producing one attesting witness as per S. 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, or since the evidence having been recorded after promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the provisions of Ss. 17 & 79 would apply to the case requiring two attesting witnesses to prove execution of the agreement

Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 being procedural law would apply retrospectively to the case where the agreement under question was allegedly executed even prior to the existence of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Facts in brevity were that the respondent/plaintiff (vendee) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 07.01.1982 claiming he purchased the land in question from petitioner No.2 (vendor) who later on through a sale deed dated 22.12.1997 sold the land to petitioner No.1 and contended that since the agreement was executed prior to promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, S. 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 would come to his aid and protection, which required only one attesting witness to prove the execution of the agreement

Held: The provisions of Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were endowed with retrospective effect as same were procedural in nature, and as a jurisprudential principle, procedural laws possessed retrospective applicability unless explicitly stipulated otherwise

The retrospective application of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 signified that they extend to cases that originated prior to their promulgation, contingent upon the evidence being recorded subsequent to their enforcement

Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 required that if a document was legally required to be attested it could not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness was called to prove its execution

This provision was in effect before the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was promulgated, however, once Qanun-e-Shahadat came into force, it repealed the Evidence Act, 1872 and its provisions took precedence

In the present case, the agreement to sell was executed on 07.01.1982 predating the promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

The agreement was attested by two witnesses, however, only one witness was produced when the evidence was recorded in the year 2003

Given that the evidence was recorded subsequent to the enforcement of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the provisions encapsulated in Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were unequivocally applicable and the respondent/plaintiff (vendee) was required to produce two attesting witnesses to prove the execution of the agreement

Notwithstanding, under S. 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a court's exercise of judicial discretion in decreeing the suit for specific performance of a contract was inherently discretionary and not a matter of absolute right for any party

The grant of specific performance was not obligatory and could be denied by the court if the prevailing circumstances warranted such denial

In the present case the respondent/plaintiff's non-compliance with the attestation requirements mandated by Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, by failing to call both attesting witnesses, rendered the document inadmissible as evidence and undermined the credibility of the agreement's execution

Additionally, the respondent/plaintiff could not substantiate the payment of the sale consideration, as the testimony of one attesting witness, was vague and did not corroborate the payment

The respondent/plaintiff failed to produce receipts to prove the payment of instalments, further diminishing the strength of his claim

Given the discrepancies in the evidence and the respondent/plaintiff's inability to meet the legal requirements, granting specific performance would not have been equitable, as the court had to ensure that the relief granted did not result in injustice or unfairness to any party

Therefore, in light of the discretionary nature of specific performance and the circumstances of the present case, the Court should exercise its discretion judiciously and decline to grant specific performance

The court below acted with material irregularity

Present civil revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 addresses the competence of witnesses and the required number of witnesses for different types of matters

In matters relating to financial or future obligations that have been reduced to writing, Art. 17(2)(a) specifies that the document must be attested by two men, or one man and two women

For all other matters, Art. 17(2)(b) grants the court the discretion to accept or act on the testimony of one man or one woman, or any other evidence deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the case

The presence of multiple witnesses serves as a safeguard against potential fraud or false testimony

Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 further stipulates that if a document is required by law to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least two attesting witnesses are called to prove its execution

This provision is intended to verify the authenticity of attested documents by requiring the testimony of persons who can confirm that the document was duly executed in their presence

The failure to call both attesting witnesses renders the document inadmissible, as it undermines the credibility of the document's execution

The provisions encapsulated within Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, are endowed with retrospective effect

These provisions are applicable to cases wherein the evidence was recorded subsequent to their enforcement, notwithstanding that the transaction transpired prior to their promulgation

Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 unequivocally stipulates that a document mandated by law to be attested, cannot be admissible as evidence unless two attesting witnesses are summoned to substantiate its execution, contingent upon their being alive, subject to the court's jurisdiction, and competent to provide testimony

The omission to summon the second attesting witness contravenes the explicit mandate of Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and consequently impairs the credibility of the document's execution

In summation, the provisions enshrined in Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, possess retrospective applicability

The non-compliance with the requirement of summoning both attesting witnesses culminates in the document being inadmissible in evidence.

Allegation of tax fraud cannot stand in a set of circumstances where after assessment proceedings, it is concluded by relevant adjudicatory forums that a taxpayer is not liable for understatement or underpayment of tax or has not made a claim for tax credit for tax refund that overstates its entitlement

That is why the tax liability for tax fraud is contingent on prior determination of a taxpayer's civil liability.

Petitioner / defendant alleged that despite revoking of power of attorney, suit land was sold by the attorney in favour of respondents / plaintiff

Plea raised by petitioner / defendant was that no sale consideration was given to him therefore, sale was not concluded

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decided the matter in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Validity

Burden of proof was squarely on respondent / plaintiff to establish that he was indeed a bona fide purchaser

Respondent / plaintiff had to provide clear and convincing evidence showing not only that the purchase was made in good faith and for fair value but also that it was done without any knowledge, actual or constructive, of the revocation of the authority under which the sale was conducted

Mere assertion of good faith and bona fide purchaser was insufficient and without such proof on record, claim of respondent / plaintiff of a bona fide purchase was not tenable

Scope of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. is limited and narrowly defined

While exercising revisional powers, High Court refrains from interfering with concurrent findings of Courts below

Such principle is grounded in judicial discipline and respect for factual determinations made by subordinate Courts

However, this rule is not absolute and does not entirely bar High Court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction in appropriate cases

Powers under S.115, C.P.C. is specifically intended to prevent gross miscarriage of justice and to correct decisions that are patently illegal or perverse

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court misapplied relevant legal provisions and incorrectly evaluated evidence on record, thereby rendering a decision that was not only legally flawed but had also caused serious prejudice to the rights of affected party

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below, as interference under S.115, C.P.C. was not only justified but necessary to uphold the principles of justice and legality

Resultantly suit filed by respondent / plaintiff was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Brief facts of the matter were that respondent No.1 was the nominee/beneficiary of insurance policy holder who obtained a Takaful Planfrom petitioner company (death cover Rs.38,50,000 against annual contribution of Rs.11,639; contribution period three years; membership term five years); after death of policy holder the nominee/beneficiary lodged the claim which the insurer rejected constraining her to filecomplaintbefore the Federal Insurance Ombudsman, which was allowed, directing payment (with liquidated damages); and the insurer's review and representation to the President's Secretariat were dismissed; thereafter, both sides filed writ petitions; nominee's writ petition for implementation was allowed and insurer's writ petition was dismissed, hence, the present petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Federal Constitutional Court

Held: Burden fell on the insurance company to establish fraudulent non-disclosure/concealment/misrepresentation by the person seeking to be insured through reliable and trustworthy evidence

Cause of death of the deceased was noted as natural causes and made no mention of his death being a result of drug addiction/narcotics

Hence, there was no nexus of his death having any nexus to him allegedly being a drug addict

No independent or contemporaneous documentary evidence was placed on record by the insurer company to substantiate the grounds viz. drug addiction of the deceased

Leave was refused and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Brief facts of the matter were that respondent No.1 was the nominee/beneficiary of insurance policy holder who obtained a Takaful Planfrom petitioner company (death cover Rs.38,50,000 against annual contribution of Rs.11,639; contribution period three years; membership term five years); after death of policy holder the nominee/beneficiary lodged the claim which the insurer rejected constraining her to filecomplaintbefore the Federal Insurance Ombudsman, which was allowed, directing payment (with liquidated damages); and the insurer's review and representation to the President's Secretariat were dismissed; thereafter, both sides filed writ petitions; nominee's writ petition for implementation was allowed and insurer's writ petition was dismissed, hence, the present petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Federal Constitutional Court

Held: Burden fell on the insurance company to establish fraudulent non-disclosure/concealment/misrepresentation by the person seeking to be insured through reliable and trustworthy evidence

Cause of death of the deceased was noted as natural causes and made no mention of his death being a result of drug addiction/narcotics

Hence, there was no nexus of his death having any nexus to him allegedly being a drug addict

No independent or contemporaneous documentary evidence was placed on record by the insurer company to substantiate the grounds viz. drug addiction of the deceased

Leave was refused and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

If a person openly professes belief in or adherence to a particular faith, no further inquiry or evidence is ordinarily required to verify its genuineness

In Islam, no specific rituals are required to be performed by a non-Muslim before he or she is regarded as having renounced a previous faith and embraced Islam

What is required is a declaration to that effect and the recitation of the Kalma, along with belief in the Oneness of Allah, the Finality of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the Holy Qur'an.

Appellants / plaintiff's claimed that suit properties were Benami transactions in favour of respondent / defendant, who was their real mother

Contention of appellants / plaintiffs was that they had been deprived of their legal share by respondent / defendant who was just an ostensible owner

Validity

Attributes of "Benami transaction", in reality means a transaction in the name of another person to describe and express a transaction of a property who holds that property as an ostensible owner for its beneficial owner

In fact, it is a genre of transaction where somebody recompenses for the property but does not get hold of it in his personal name

Person in whose name such type of property is purchased is called Benamidar and the property so purchased is called Benami property

Despite the fact a Benami property is purchased in the name of someone else, the person who sponsored the transaction is the real owner

By and large, the assets acquired in the name of spouse or a child for which the money is paid from known sources of income is called Benami property

Onerous sense of duty lies on the party who raises plea of Benami transaction to prove by adducing unimpeachable evidence

Court is not required to decide such pleas on the basis of mere suspicion

Mode and manner of transaction is to be established by corroborating intentions of parties at the relevant time which could be congregated from surrounding circumstances such as relationship/association of parties, the motive or aspiration implicit in transactions including subsequent comportment and factum of possession of the property and custody of title documents

Best possible evidence could have been adduced by deceased himself if he had any dispute with regard to title of properties which he never raised in his lifetime

Even if properties were purchased through funds or resources of deceased husband, then both husband and wife were privy to such arrangements/transactions in their own marital relationship

After passing of several years, children could not question or challenge title or ownership of properties in the name of their mother without any cogent proof or trustworthy evidence that she was actually an ostensible owner

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Allegation was that the registered person /company did not purchase any coal from the local suppliers but unlawfully claimed input tax on the basis of fake/ flying invoices issued by dubious suppliers, therefore, causing loss to the national exchequer

Order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue in favour of registered person was concurred with by the High Court

Validity

Pertinently, the proceedings in the matter were initiated pursuant to issuance of Show Cause Notice wherein the respondents were not confronted with any invoices, the value of which was above Rs. 50,000/

No material or evidence whatsoever was provided to substantiate the allegation to the effect that the suppliers as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice were blacklisted during the tax period under consideration

In the present case, Show-Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original were passed on vague and frivolous allegations and certain conclusions had been made on mere presumptions only, whereas, no material or evidence had been produced to substantiate the same

Notably, while passing the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue exceeded his jurisdiction while travelling beyond the very premises, whereas the respondents were never confronted with the allegations made in the Show-Cause Notice or entries as reflected in the bank statement which were subsequently furnished by the respondents, showing the details of the total amount and the particulars of suppliers from whom purchases were made

While initiating the proceedings against the respondents, there was no material or evidence available on record to make out a case against the respondents of illegal or inadmissible claim of input tax adjustment, whereas the entire proceedings and the Order-in-Original passed in the present case was based on presumptions, whereas no inquiry or verification was made by the Department in respect of alleged fake/flying invoices

Thus, the Tribunal and the High Court were justified to set aside both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, while recording concurrent findings on facts which did not suffer from any illegality or error

Petition for leave to appeal, filed by Department, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by respondents/tenants was that rent was being adjusted towards payment of loan by predecessor-in-interest of appellants/landlords

Validity

No documentary evidence to such effect was produced before the Courts below, which otherwise was sufficient to establish the willful default in payment of rent for period in question

Non-compliance of Tentative Rent Order itself was sufficient ground for ejectment of appellants / tenants without further inquiry into merits as it had constituted willful default

High Court passed its judgment without appreciating factual position and evidence produced by parties in support of their respective claims and had misdirected itself while setting aside order passed by Rent Controller on the issue of default in payment of rent, nor could appreciate the effect of non-compliance of Tentative Rent Order passed

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court on the ground of default in payment of rent and judgment of Rent Controller was upheld

Appeal was allowed.

Proceedings under Sections 290 and 291 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 were initiated against respondents for inquiry into mismanagement and oppression in corporate affairs

Company Judge allowed the petition and Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeal

Objection was raised by appellant on admissibility of secondary evidence

Validity

Issues arising in the present case had brought into sharp focus the fundamental role of corporate governance in ensuring that companies act with transparency, fairness, and accountability

Protection of shareholder rights, obligation of disclosure, and adherence to ethical governance practices were not optional aspirations; they were indispensable pillars upon which trust in corporate structures was built

It was by steadfast commitment to such principles that corporations earn legitimacy, foster sustainable growth, and contribute to economic and social well-being of wider community

Corporate governance was, in its essence, a framework designed not merely to direct corporate conduct but to safeguard interests of all stakeholders through structured, principled oversight

Supreme Court accordingly reaffirmed that transparency, good faith disclosure, and protection of shareholders must remain at the heart of all corporate endeavors, for it was only through such adherence that confidence in corporate sector and by extension, in rule of law itself, could be maintained and strengthened

Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Appeal was dismissed.

Proceedings under sections 290 and 291 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 were initiated against respondents for inquiry into mismanagement and oppression in corporate affairs

Company Judge allowed the petition and Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeal

Objection was raised by appellant on admissibility of secondary evidence

Validity

Company Judge erred in proceeding summarily in a dispute that required a full evidentiary examination

Nature of the controversy, involving serious allegations of forgery and fabrication, necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence; procedural safeguards that were improperly bypassed

Statutory prohibition under section 148 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 (section 121 of Companies Act, 2017) precluded recognition of a trust over shares in the company's register, reinforcing the principle that the company was not bound to take notice of any alleged trust arrangement

Claim of trust, as asserted by respondents, was legally untenable

Improper admission of secondary evidence in violation of Article 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 undermined validity of proceedings

Failure to establish preconditions for admissibility of secondary evidence rendered reliance on disputed documents unsustainable

Discretion of Company Judge in treating the Shareholders' Agreements as genuine was exercised in disregard of established legal principles, given the absence of a proper evidentiary inquiry

Division Bench, in upholding such finding, failed to recognize procedural and substantive irregularities in the adjudication of the case

Parties could pursue their respective claims in pending civil suits, wherein all matters in controversy, including validity of Shareholders' Agreements and legitimacy of meeting in question of Board of Directors were to be adjudicated

Supreme Court set aside judgments passed by Company Judge as well as by Division Bench of High Court

Appeal was allowed. [Majority view]

Respondent / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property and had assailed oral gift allegedly made in favour of petitioner / defendant by her deceased mother

Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of respondent / plaintiff and High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction maintained that judgment and decree

Validity

Despite the fact that oral gift under Islamic Law was not required to be compulsorily registered under Registration Act, 1908, within the exactitudes of sections 123 and 129 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the relaxation of non-registration or optional nature of such registration did not absolve petitioner / defendant (donee) from strictly proving factum of gift or the declartion of oral gift under challenge

Neither petitioner / defendant succeeded in proving indenture of declaration of oral gift nor there was any attempt made to register gift to avoid any future claim or dispute and nor was it proved to have been executed by deceased who was living abroad

Petitioner / defendant also failed to prove as to when deceased donor had come to reduce oral declaration into writing

No witnesses were produced who could satisfactorily corroborate presence of alleged donor in Pakistan

Regardless of all such incongruities and misdeeds, the Housing Society transferred the property in the name of petitioner / defendant in their record which was rightly rendered null and void

Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below, as there was no illegality or perversity in their judgments and decrees

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Accused was convicted for qatl-i-amd and Trial Court sentenced him to death but High Court converted the sentence into imprisonment for life

Validity

Un-explained delay in lodging FIR created doubt in prosecution's case and benefit of the same had to be extended and construed in favour of accused

Statement of complainant suffered from material contradictions which had created serious doubt about his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence as well as veracity of his statement

Complainant's statement was not corroborated by any tangible substance, therefore, his testimony could not be made basis for recording conviction for offence entailing capital punishment

Two persons who according to complainant had also witnessed occurrence were abandoned by prosecution for no good reason

Adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to the effect that had the two witnesses been produced by prosecution, they would not have supported prosecution's case

Such infirmities, glaring omissions and contradictions in prosecution's case led to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt

For giving benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be so many circumstances, rather a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for extending its benefit to accused not as a matter of concession but as of right

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Courts below which were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioners / plaintiffs were aggrieved of order passed by High Court declining withdrawal of suit with permission to file fresh suit on the plea of some formal defect

Validity

Petitioners / plaintiffs could not refer to any 'formal defect' which could be: misdescription of partis, incorrect valuation, procedural errors or technical defects, which did not affect merits of the case and if such defects went to the root of the case, the same could not be considered as formal defects

When there was a verdict against petitioners / plaintiffs existing in field, they could not be allowed to step back, without disclosing formal defect in the plaint by using shoulders of Court

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality, and the law on the subject had correctly and judiciously been appreciated and construed

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to death but High Court altered the sentence to imprisonment for life

Validity

Reason mentioned by prosecution eye-witnesses for their presence at place of occurrence, which was situated in a different village could not be established

It was not safe to rely upon such evidence

Conflict between ocular account and medical evidence showed that infact prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time

If eye-witnesses had been present at the time of occurrence they should have given correct number of injuries sustained by deceased

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt

Even a single circumstance, which creates doubt in prosecution case, is sufficient to acquit accused

Case against accused was repleted with number of circumstances, which had created serious doubts in prosecution story

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and while giving him benefit of doubt, acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Accused persons were alleged to have used explosive substance during their attack on a religious building, causing deaths, injuries to different persons and loss to property

Trial Court convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to death

Plea raised by accused persons was that they were already in custody in injured condition when the occurrence took place

Validity

If accused was apprehended on the day of occurrence in injured condition and medical treatment was provided to him at a hospital then why his medico legal report was not produced in evidence

Such fact supported claim of accused that they were earlier apprehended by the police and kept in illegal confinement during which they were physically tortured and they were made scapegoats in the case

Duration of injuries in the medico legal report showed that accused had injuries, which were caused 4/5 days earlier to the date of occurrence

Such fact had created further dent in the prosecution story

Medico Legal Report (MLR) of accused was the best evidence to show presence of accused at the time of occurrence which had not been produced in prosecution evidence

Adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could validly be drawn against prosecution that had that MLR been produced in the evidence, the same would not have supported prosecution case against accused

If there is a single circumstance which creates doubt in the prosecution case then the same is sufficient to acquit the accused

Case against accused persons was repleted with number of circumstances, which had created serious doubts in prosecution story

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charges

Appeal was allowed.

Appellant/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land and assailed mutation of gift on the plea of fraud, allegedly attested on her behalf in favour of respondents/defendants

Validity

Beneficiaries under mutation in question had burden to demonstrate validity of original transaction

This entailed meeting a threefold burden

Firstly, there was a pleading burden; respondents / defendants had to articulate all relevant facts and material particulars regarding purported gift in their written statement

Secondly, respondents/defendants had the burden of producing evidence, which meant presenting documents or testimony supporting their claims

Thirdly, they carried burden of persuasion, effectively convincing the Court of the legitimacy of their assertions regarding original gift transaction

Such burdens were not abstract legal formalities and formed the bedrock of fairness in civil litigation

Burden of pleading ensures proper framing of issues; the evidentiary burden establishes factual basis; and the burden of persuasion is the ultimate determinant of legal entitlement

Appellant/plaintiff was justified in delaying any legal action until the threat to her rights had become overt and undeniable

This point accrued when respondents/defendants formally denied her claim before revenue authorities

Such event culminated in an order directing appellant/plaintiff to pursue her claim in civil Court

Appellant's/plaintiff's suit was instituted within the stipulated limitation period

Supreme Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by all the Courts below as they were fundamentally flawed and the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff was decreed

Appeal was allowed.

Recovery of Chaddar on pointing out of female accused was not stained with any incriminating material, like blood, froth, etc. of deceased

No Forensic Science Laboratory report was available on record regarding the Chaddar, which was available in every house

Recovery of Chaddar was not sufficient to connect accused persons with alleged offense

Prosecution also produced evidence of torn shirt of female accused from her possession, which was allegedly torn during the occurrence but no such statement was made by sole eyewitness that during the occurrence shirt of female accused was torn who had changed the shirt after the occurrence

Such recoveries were inconsequential for the prosecution

There was no independent corroboration of judicial confession of accused persons

Evidence of sole eyewitness was not worthy of reliance

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond shadow of doubt

If there was a single circumstance which had created doubt in prosecution case, the same was sufficient to acquit accused persons

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons as there were number of circumstances which had created serious doubts in prosecution's story

Resultantly accused persons were acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt

Appeal was allowed.