Jalil Khan Dotani v. Dawood Ahmed,
CLC 2010 1434 · Balochistan High Court
This case from the Balochistan High Court involved a property dispute in Quetta over a house and shops. Jalil Khan Dotani had filed a lawsuit for specific performance of a sale agreement, claiming Tahir Ahmed Dar had agreed to sell him the property. Dar denied ever signing such an agreement, calling it forged, and separately sued Dotani for declaration, possession, and injunction. The two cases were being heard together.
The key dispute here was about evidence. Dotani claimed the original sale agreement had been in his possession but got lost when he brought it to court, so he asked permission to prove the agreement using secondary evidence, like the photocopy already attached to his case. The trial court rejected this request, finding no sufficient proof that the document was actually lost. Dotani challenged that rejection in this revision petition.
The High Court explained that under Pakistan's evidence law (the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order), documents must normally be proved through the original itself, with secondary evidence like copies allowed only in specific situations, such as when the original is genuinely lost through no fault of the party. However, the court noted that Dotani only reported the document as lost more than two years after the fact, and had not first established that the agreement was validly executed before claiming it was lost.
The court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that Dotani had failed to justify why secondary evidence should be allowed, and dismissed his petition. The case illustrates the strict evidentiary standards required before courts will accept copies instead of original documents.
یہ کیس بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ میں کوئٹہ کے ایک مکان اور دکانوں سے متعلق جائیداد کے تنازع پر مبنی تھا۔ جلیل خان دوتانی نے بیع کے معاہدے پر مخصوص کارکردگی (specific performance) کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا، جس میں ان کا دعویٰ تھا کہ طاہر احمد ڈار نے یہ جائیداد انہیں فروخت کرنے پر رضامندی ظاہر کی تھی۔ ڈار نے ایسے کسی معاہدے پر دستخط کرنے سے صاف انکار کیا اور اسے جعلی قرار دیا، اور اس کے ساتھ ہی دوتانی کے خلاف اعلانِ حق، قبضے اور حکمِ امتناعی کے لیے علیحدہ مقدمہ دائر کر دیا۔ دونوں مقدمات کی سماعت ایک ساتھ ہو رہی تھی۔
اس معاملے میں بنیادی تنازع شہادت (evidence) سے متعلق تھا۔ دوتانی کا کہنا تھا کہ بیع کے معاہدے کی اصل دستاویز ان کے پاس موجود تھی مگر جب وہ اسے عدالت میں لے کر آئے تو وہ گم ہو گئی، اس لیے انہوں نے استدعا کی کہ انہیں ثانوی شہادت (secondary evidence) کے ذریعے، جیسے کہ ان کے مق