NIAMATULLAH SHAH Versus FARMANULLAH

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM J‑ This order will govern Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1979 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 15‑R of 1979. The appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 2 nd of May 1978, by which Civil Revision No. 405 of 1976 was dismissed.

2. The facts are these: The appellant instituted a suit against the respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, Charsadda, on 30th of July, 1974, for the recovery of Rs. 2,000 as price of 5 bags of grams and miscellaneous goods. The claim in regard to the first item was of Rs. 750 and in regard to the second, Rs. 1,250. In support of the first claim, the appellant relied on oral evidence and to prove the second claim he relied on copies of receipts Exhs. P. W. I/I to P. W. 1/3. The respondents objected to the admissibility of the copies but the trial Court ignored it and decreed the claim of the appellant for Rs. 2,000 with costs by judgment dated 31st of March, 1976. The respondents appealed to the District Judge, Peshawar which was heard by an Additional District Judge who modified the decree by rejecting the claim of Rs. 1,250 on account of the price of miscellaneous goods as he was of the opinion that these receipts were inadmissible in evidence as the appellant neither produced their originals nor mad, out a case for leading secondary evidence under section 65 of the Evidence Act. The appellant went in revision to the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, but did not succeed as the High Court also held that the copies of the receipts had no evidential value for the reasons given by the Additional District Judge,

3. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question whether the High Court had misread or omitted to consider the relevant record. Having been taken though the record we are inclined to hold that the claim for Rs. 1,250 as price of miscellaneous goods rested entirely on the aforementioned copies of the receipts which were clearly inadmissible as under section 64 of the Evidence Act the originals had to be produced and in their absence, the appellant should have made out a case for leading secondary evidence under section 65 of the Evidence Act; and not having done that, these receipts had no evidential value and were wrongly admitted in evidence by the trial Court despite the objection raised by the respondents.

4. There is, therefore, no substance in the appeal, which is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

5. As regards the miscellaneous petition, it has no relevance with the present appeal as it relates to some other claim of the appellant. This is also dismissed.

6. Petition dismissed.