Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 213‑R of 1981, decided on 29‑5‑1982.

(On appeal from judgment and order, dated 7‑7‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Civil Revision No. 1121 of 1980).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 47‑‑Proof of document‑‑Mode of‑‑Witness acquainted with writing of author of document‑‑High Court accepting mode of proof of document by person who was not its author but was acquainted with handwriting of author thereof‑‑Finding challenged‑‑Mode of proof having support of S. 47 (Act I of 1872) was not open to interference‑‑Question as to weight to be attached to evidence sought to be produced would have to be determined by Court itself‑ Leave to appeal refused.

Shahid Iqbal, A.A.‑G., Punjab for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th May, 1982.

After hearing the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, in support of this petition for leave to appeal which has arisen out of an interlocutory order, regarding proof of a document, sought to be produced and exhibited from the respondents' side, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave.

The objection of the petitioners was that the Managing Director of respondent No.1 could not prove the documents which had not been prepared and signed by himself, on the only ground that he was acquainted with the handwriting of the authors thereof. Initially, the trial Court upheld the objection but respondents' revision was accepted and the order was reversed. The learned Single Judge in the High Court observed that there are several modes of proof of document; for example; by calling the writer as a witness; by examining the person in whose presence it was written or signed; by examining the person who is acquainted with the writing or signatures of the author of the document; by expert evidence; by comparison of the signatures under section 73; and by proving the admission of the person against whom the document is used. This analysis of the Law of Evidence has not been challenged before us. The method of proof resorted to from the respondents' side in one of the afore‑noted modes. It has the support of section 47 of the Evidence Act. That being so, we find no justification for interference.

With regard to the other aspects dealt with in the judgment of the learned judge in the High Court, it needs to be observed that amongst others, the question as to the weight to be attached to the evidence sought to be produced from the respondents' side, would have to be determined by the Court itself. We would add only that even when the respondents' witness is examined so as to prove a document, it would be for the Court to see whether he satisfies the conditions set forth in section 47 of the Act. With these observations, we find no force in this petition and the same accordingly is dismissed.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.