secondary evidence application allowed without prior notice as required under certain exceptions in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
 |
| Secondary evidence application case laws |
The court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions allowing the respondents to produce secondary evidence without prior notice as required under certain exceptions in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
The judgment in Writ Petition No. 11458 of 2024, Bagh Ali versus Addl. District Judge, etc., addresses several key legal issues and principles. Here are the main points discussed in the judgment:
1. **Nature of the Petition**: The petitioner challenged the orders of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court allowing the respondents to produce secondary evidence in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
2. **Legal Framework**:
- **Articles 76 and 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (QSO)**: These articles govern the conditions under which secondary evidence can be admitted. Article 76 outlines situations permitting secondary evidence, while Article 77 requires notice to produce the original document unless exceptions apply.
- **Order XII and Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)**: These orders discuss the procedures for admitting documents into evidence during a trial.
3. **Arguments by Petitioner**: The petitioner argued that the Courts below failed to adhere to the prerequisites for allowing secondary evidence under Article 76 of the QSO. Specifically, no notice to produce the document under Article 77 or Order XII of the CPC was given.
4. **Arguments by Respondents**: The respondents contended that they had filed the necessary application under Article 76 of the QSO and had detailed the legal notice and postal receipts in the plaint. They argued that under the exceptions in Article 77, notice was not required as the document itself was a notice.
5. **Court's Analysis**:
- **Application for Secondary Evidence**: The Court clarified that while filing an application to lead secondary evidence is common, it is not mandatory. Secondary evidence can be led during the trial, and objections to such evidence can be decided then or at the final adjudication.
- **Timing of Application**: The stage at which the application for secondary evidence is filed is irrelevant if the legal foundations for secondary evidence are established either in pleadings or during evidence presentation.
- **Exceptions to Notice Requirement**: Article 77’s exceptions apply when the document itself is a notice or when the adverse party must be aware they would need to produce it.
6. **Decision of the Courts Below**: The Court upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and Revisional Court, affirming that the respondents correctly made out a prima facie case for secondary evidence without needing prior notice under the specific exceptions of Article 77 of the QSO.
7. **Legal Precedents**: The judgment referenced previous cases that supported the admissibility of secondary evidence without prior notice under similar circumstances.
8. **Conclusion**: The petition was dismissed as the respondents were rightly allowed to produce secondary evidence, and the procedural requirements were adequately met under the exceptions provided in the QSO.
The judgment emphasizes the flexibility within the legal framework for admitting secondary evidence and the importance of context-specific considerations by the Court.
رٹ پٹیشن نمبر 11458 آف 2024 میں فیصلہ، باغ علی بمقابلہ اضافی۔ ڈسٹرکٹ جج وغیرہ کئی اہم قانونی مسائل اور اصولوں کو حل کرتے ہیں۔ فیصلے میں زیر بحث اہم نکات یہ ہیں:
1. **درخواست کی نوعیت**: درخواست گزار نے ٹرائل کورٹ اور ریویژنل کورٹ کے ان احکامات کو چیلنج کیا جس میں جواب دہندگان کو فروخت کے معاہدے کی مخصوص کارکردگی کے مقدمے میں ثانوی ثبوت پیش کرنے کی اجازت دی گئی۔
2. **قانونی فریم ورک**:
- **قانون شہادت آرڈر، 1984 (QSO) کے آرٹیکلز 76 اور 77**: یہ آرٹیکل ان شرائط کو کنٹرول کرتے ہیں جن کے تحت ثانوی شہادت کو تسلیم کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ آرٹیکل 76 ثانوی ثبوت کی اجازت دینے والے حالات کا خاکہ پیش کرتا ہے، جب کہ آرٹیکل 77 میں اصل دستاویز پیش کرنے کے لیے نوٹس کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے جب تک کہ استثناء کا اطلاق نہ ہو۔
- **کوڈ آف سول پروسیجر، 1908 (CPC) کا آرڈر XII اور آرڈر XVIII**: یہ احکامات مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران دستاویزات کو ثبوت میں تسلیم کرنے کے طریقہ کار پر بحث کرتے ہیں۔
3. **درخواست گزار کے دلائل**: درخواست گزار نے استدلال کیا کہ ذیل کی عدالتیں QSO کے آرٹیکل 76 کے تحت ثانوی ثبوت کی اجازت دینے کے لیے ضروری شرائط پر عمل کرنے میں ناکام رہیں۔ خاص طور پر، سی پی سی کے آرٹیکل 77 یا آرڈر XII کے تحت دستاویز پیش کرنے کا کوئی نوٹس نہیں دیا گیا تھا۔
4. **جواب دہندگان کے دلائل**: جواب دہندگان نے استدلال کیا کہ انہوں نے QSO کے آرٹیکل 76 کے تحت ضروری درخواست دائر کی ہے اور مدعی میں قانونی نوٹس اور پوسٹل رسیدوں کی تفصیل دی ہے۔ ان کا موقف تھا کہ آرٹیکل 77 میں مستثنیات کے تحت نوٹس کی ضرورت نہیں تھی کیونکہ دستاویز بذات خود ایک نوٹس ہے۔
5. **عدالت کا تجزیہ**:
- **ثانوی ثبوت کے لیے درخواست**: عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ ثانوی ثبوت پیش کرنے کے لیے درخواست دائر کرنا عام ہے، لیکن یہ لازمی نہیں ہے۔ مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران ثانوی ثبوت کی رہنمائی کی جا سکتی ہے، اور ایسے شواہد پر اعتراضات کا فیصلہ اس وقت یا حتمی فیصلے پر کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
- **درخواست کا وقت**: جس مرحلے پر ثانوی ثبوت کے لیے درخواست دائر کی جاتی ہے وہ غیر متعلقہ ہے اگر ثانوی ثبوت کی قانونی بنیادیں یا تو درخواست میں یا ثبوت پیش کرنے کے دوران قائم کی گئی ہوں۔
- **نوٹس کی ضرورت سے مستثنیات**: آرٹیکل 77 کی مستثنیات اس وقت لاگو ہوتی ہیں جب دستاویز بذات خود ایک نوٹس ہو یا جب مخالف فریق کو معلوم ہونا چاہیے کہ انہیں اسے پیش کرنے کی ضرورت ہوگی۔
6. **نیچے دی گئی عدالتوں کا فیصلہ**: عدالت نے ٹرائل کورٹ اور نظرثانی عدالت کے فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھا، اس بات کی توثیق کرتے ہوئے کہ مدعا علیہ نے آرٹیکل 77 کے مخصوص استثناء کے تحت پیشگی اطلاع کی ضرورت کے بغیر ثانوی ثبوت کے لیے پہلی نظر میں درست طریقے سے مقدمہ بنایا۔ QSO کے.
7. **قانونی نظیریں**: فیصلے میں سابقہ مقدمات کا حوالہ دیا گیا جو اسی طرح کے حالات میں پیشگی اطلاع کے بغیر ثانوی ثبوت کے قابل قبول ہونے کی حمایت کرتے تھے۔
8. **نتیجہ**: درخواست کو خارج کر دیا گیا کیونکہ جواب دہندگان کو صحیح طور پر ثانوی ثبوت پیش کرنے کی اجازت دی گئی تھی، اور QSO میں فراہم کردہ استثنیٰ کے تحت طریقہ کار کے تقاضوں کو مناسب طریقے سے پورا کیا گیا تھا۔
یہ فیصلہ ثانوی ثبوت کو تسلیم کرنے کے لیے قانونی فریم ورک کے اندر لچک اور عدالت کی طرف سے سیاق و سباق سے متعلق تحفظات کی اہمیت پر زور دیتا ہے۔
Stereo. H C J D A 38.
JUDGMENT SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.11458 of 2024
Bagh Ali
Versus Addl. District Judge, etc.
J U D G M E N T
Date of Hearing:
18.04.2024
Petitioner by:
Mr. Arshad Ali Chohan, Advocate.
Respondents
No.3
and 4 by:
Ch. Tanveer Ahmad Hajra, Advocate.
Rana Muhammad Arif, Advocate.
Anwaar Hussain, J. Through this petition, under Article 199 of
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the
petitioner-defendant in a suit for specific performance of agreement to
sell, has called into question orders dated 12.10.2023 and 16.01.2024,
passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court below, respectively,
whereby the application of respondents No.3 and 4 (“the
respondents”) to produce the secondary evidence was allowed.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
orders are illegal and unlawful as the Courts below failed to advert to
the condition precedent contained in Article 76 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 (“the QSO”) relating to seeking permission for
leading secondary evidence, which was never adhered to. Adds that
neither notice to produce the document(s) under Article 77 of the QSO
nor notice to admit or deny the document(s) in terms of Order XII of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) was given to the petitioner,
therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable.
3.
Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submit that,
even though an application under Article 76 of the QSO is not
mandatory, however, the same had been filed as an abundant caution
2
W.P. No.11458 of 2024
by the respondents. Add that in order to produce the counsel who
issued the document in question (“the legal notice”), the
respondents/plaintiffs were not required and/or obligated to put the
petitioner/defendant on notice and to establish that the original was not
available, hence, the Revisional Court has correctly passed the
impugned order, which is supported by cogent reasons. Further
contends that the respondents have already mentioned the contents of
the legal notice in Paragraph No.5 of the plaint and thereafter in the
application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, alongwith
the name of the counsel who issued the same and, have also appended
the copies of the postal receipts with the plaint, therefore, no notice was
required to be served on the petitioner/defendant in terms of Article 77
of the QSO.
4.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
application of the respondent was premature and unless the respondents
produce the counsel who issued the legal notice, alongwith original
postal receipts, the application, which is mandatory for leading
secondary evidence, cannot be filed let alone entertained and allowed
through impugned orders.
5.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
6.
This Court is called upon to render its findings in respect of the
following legal questions:
i.
Whether a litigant can be permitted to lead
secondary evidence, as a matter of right,
without the leave of the Court and is not
required to submit an application seeking such
permission from the Trial Court?
ii.
At which stage of the proceedings a litigant
can apply for leading secondary evidence and
whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Courts below were justified in
3
W.P. No.11458 of 2024
allowing the application filed by the
respondents?
7.
Before answering the legal question, it will be appropriate to
examine the law of evidence on the subject. During the course of a civil
trial, it is cardinal principle that he who asserts a fact must prove the
same, which is based on latin maxim “onus probandi actori incumbit”.
Mode of proof is the procedure by which the “facts in issue” as also
“the relevant facts” have to be proved during the trial. Articles 70-89 of
the QSO contemplate the applicable rules. The general rule is that a
document is to be proved through primary evidence as envisaged in
Article 75 of the QSO. The said provision of law obligates that the
contents of document must be proved by, bringing on record, primary
evidence except the cases provided in the succeeding provisions.
Article 74 of the QSO defines the term secondary evidence by
providing that secondary evidence, inter alia, includes certified copies,
copies made from original by mechanical process, copies made from or
compared with the original or oral accounts of the contents of a
document whereas Article 76 of the QSO contemplates that secondary
evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a
document in certain cases provided in the said provision of law.
Legislative scheme envisaged under the QSO is accommodative of the
situations where a litigant is handicapped and/or unable to lead primary
evidence for reasons beyond his control, means or capacity and thus can
have recourse to Article 76 of the QSO and the circumstances referred
thereunder appear to circumscribe letting secondary evidence. It is,
inter alia, in the absence or incapacity of a party, to a lis, giving
evidence to tender primary evidence in the circumstances referred to
under the provisions of Article 76 of the QSO that right of a party to
lead secondary evidence in respect of the document would occasion.
This right of a litigant would accrue only in the cases or circumstances
4
W.P. No.11458 of 2024
referred to under clauses (a) to (i) of Article 76 of the QSO. The Court
seized with the matter is competent to determine whether sufficient
grounds have been made out or not for the admission of secondary
evidence, which power is to be exercised by the Court keeping in view
the parameters and dynamics laid down in Article 76 and the facts and
circumstances of each case as secondary evidence is given to prove the
existence, condition, or contents of the document and nothing more
beyond that. In terms of Article 77 of the QSO, secondary evidence of
the contents of a document shall not be allowed unless the party
proposing to give such secondary evidence is previously given, to the
party in whose possession or power the document is or to his advocate,
such notice to produce it as prescribed by the law. For the purpose of
present controversy, it is clause (a) of Article 76 of the QSO read with
Article 77 thereof, which are relevant and are reproduced hereunder:
“76. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to
documents may be given. Secondary evidence may be
given of the existence, condition or contents of a
document in the following cases:-
(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power of the person against whom the
document is sought to be proved, or of any person out
of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court; or
of any person legally bound to produce it; and when,
after the notice mentioned in Article 77, such person
does not produce it;
(b)…….
……
In cases (a), (c), (d) and (e), any secondary evidence of
the contents of the documents is admissible.
77. Rules as to notice to produce. Secondary evidence
of the contents of the documents referred to in Article
76, paragraph (a), shall not be given unless the party
proposing to give such secondary evidence has
5
W.P. No.11458 of 2024
previously given to the party in whose possession or
power the document is, or to his advocate such notice
to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is
prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court
considers reasonable under the circumstances of the
case.
Provided that such notice shall not be required in
order to render secondary evidence admissible in any
of the following cases, or in any other case in which the
Court thinks fit to dispense with it:-
(1) When the document to be proved is itself a
notice;
(2) When, from the nature of the case, the adverse
party must know that he will be required to
produce it;
(Emphasis provided)
Clause (a) of Article 76 provides that when the original is shown or
appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom
the document is sought to be proved and when after the notice
mentioned in Article 77 such person does not produce it, the litigant
has a right to lead the secondary evidence. However, clause (1) of the
proviso to Article 77 lays down that such notice is not required to be
served when the document to be proved is itself a notice. Similarly,
clause (2) of the proviso to Article 77 is also attracted in the present
case as the petitioner/defendant from the nature of the case knew that
he will be required to produce the legal notice although the
petitioner/defendant denied the receipt thereof.
8.
Having above elucidation qua relevant legal provisions in sight,
the legal questions formulated hereinabove are to be answered. It is
imperative to observe that although there is tendency as well as
prevalent practice of the litigants to file an application for leading
secondary evidence, it is always open to a party to lead secondary
evidence before the Trial Court, without filing any application for the
6
W.P. No.11458 of 2024
reason that upon filing of any such application, one of the two course
of actions are adopted by the Courts; either the secondary evidence is
not considered or the evidence is considered twice, once for the
purpose of “seeking leave/permission of the Court” and then again at
the time of admitting the document. In first eventuality, there is
possibility of losing an important piece of evidence if the application
is dismissed and no appeal is filed and in case of the latter, precious
time of the Court is wasted and it achieves nothing. Therefore, the
party intending to produce secondary evidence may produce it at the
time of recording of evidence, which the opposing party may object to
at that time and the Court may decide the objection then and there or
the Court may let it be recorded under objection and decide it at the
time of final adjudication of the lis i.e., at the time of passing the
judgment and decree.
9.
It is also to be kept in sight that when a trial is initiated, a
litigant may have primary evidence of some documents, and
secondary evidence of few others. It is for the litigant to decide which
of these documents he can best prove and by what evidence. In terms
of clause (a) of Article 76, a notice is required to given to the other
side to produce an original document in terms of Article 77 but said
provision of law also contains certain exceptions as well. One of these
exception is envisaged in sub-clause (1) which contemplates that no
notice is required “when the documents to be proved is itself a
notice”-the legal notice in instant case, or “when, from the nature of
the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to
produce it”, which is also the factual position in the present case.
Therefore, it is not in every case that a notice under Article 77 is
compulsory and no “leave or permission” is required from the Court to
lead secondary evidence. While leading evidence, in terms of Order
XVIII, CPC, a witness may state that a given document cannot be
proved by direct evidence and then proceed to adduce the secondary
W.P. No.11458 of 2024
evidence in compliance with Article 76 of the QSO and the Trial
Court is to consider that evidence, viz., the reason given for not
leading the primary evidence and the secondary evidence led and then
decide as to whether the secondary evidence led is sufficient and
fulfills the mandatory requirements of Article 76 read with Article 77
of the QSO. However, the party, to a lis, may choose to file an
application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, which is
required to be considered by the Trial Court but the Court cannot insist
on filing of an application for any such permission particularly, if a
party to the suit has laid foundations of leading secondary evidence,
either in the pleadings or while leading the evidence. The secondary
evidence cannot be ousted for consideration only because an
application for permission to lead secondary evidence was not filed.
10. In view of the preceding discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that a party may furnish secondary evidence and filing of an
application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence would not
be mandatory in every case. However, an application for leading
secondary evidence by a party is not precluded. Suffice to observe that
since filing of a formal application for leading secondary evidence is
not mandatory, the stage at which such an application is filed becomes
irrelevant.
11. In present case, the respondents filed the application for the
reason that the legal notice issued by their counsel, duly referred (by
name) in the plaint of their suit and copies of postal receipts have also
been appended with the plaint of the suit instituted by the respondents
and the petitioner/defendant has denied the same, therefore, the
respondents be allowed to lead secondary evidence of the legal notice.
After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
in hand, the Revisional Court below has correctly upheld the decision
of the Trial Court, with independent and cogent reasons. Operative
8
W.P. No.11458 of 2024
part of the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Revisional
Court below reads as under:
“8.
Having examined the list U/O 7 rule 14
CPC, it reveal that in the first column the respondents
disclosed as many as six documents which were
appended with the plaint. ……….. Column No.1 of the
list is very pertinent as it earnestly discloses the intention
of the respondents and merely six documents have been
disclosed to be attached with the plaint. It mentions at
Sr. No.5 that photocopy of legal notice issued to the
defendant has been annexed alongwith original receipts
for dispatch of registered covered envelopes of the legal
notice. The intention of the respondents was quite
manifest from day one. More particularly, when the
petitioner being defendant in the suit has already
denied the receipt of the legal notice for which the
original receipts of postal service are also available with
the respondents. The respondents should have the fair
opportunity to prove their stance in the shape of
secondary evidence and necessary permission was
sought by the learned trial court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court endorses the opinion of the Courts below. The respondents
made out a prima facie case to lead secondary evidence and the prior
notice in terms of Article 77 of the QSO was not required as envisaged
under clause (1) thereof as the document intended to be produced itself
is a notice. Cases reported as “Muhammad Khan and 9 others v.
Ameer Khan Gaddi Balloch” (2008 YLR 296); “Altaf Hussain Shah
and another v. Abdul Qadeer and 2 others” (PLJ 2004 Lahore 579)
and “Liaqat Ali v. Muzaffar Khan and another” (2003 YLR 1899) are
referred in this regard. Needless to observe that mere admission of a
document in evidence and making exhibit thereof does not prove it
automatically and/or does not attest to its authenticity, truthfulness or
genuineness, which will have to be established during the course of
the trial, in accordance with law.
9
W.P. No.11458 of 2024
12. In view of the above discussion, the present constitutional
petition has no merits, hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(ANWAAR HUSSAIN)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment