MADAR BAKHSH vs AZIZ AHMAD
The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking the annulment of a receipt and agreement concerning property, alleging fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged fraud. This decision was upheld by the first appellate court and subsequently by the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent failed to establish certain objections raised in the written statement. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner to establish the assertions made in the plaint. The Court ruled that the petitioner could not succeed or gain any advantage based on alleged technical weaknesses in the respondent's defense when the petitioner's own case had failed on merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts.
- Does a failure by the defendant to establish objections in a written statement entitle the plaintiff to succeed if the plaintiff has failed to prove their own case?
- Where does the burden of proof lie in a suit seeking the annulment of an agreement on the grounds of fraud?
- Can a petitioner gain an advantage from technical weaknesses in the respondent's case if the petitioner has failed to discharge their own burden of proof?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The petitioner/plaintiff having filed a suit so as to seek annulment of a receipt/agreement executed in favour of the respondent regarding suit property on ground of fraud, he failed before the trial Court. His suit was dismissed. Findings regarding alleged fraud were rendered against him. His first appeal failed and his second appeal having been dismissed by the High Court, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. Although the learned counsel remained unable to canvass any cogent point against the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the learned lower Courts against the petitioner; he, however, contended that some objections raised from the respondent's side in the written statement were also not established.
3. ' This point by itself would not make any difference. The burden was on the petitioner to establish assertions made by him in the suit. Having failed in that behalf, he cannot gain any advantage on account of any technical weakness in the projection of the case from the respondent's side.
4. ' This petition has no force. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.