EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES
Mian Ali Haider
L.L.B., L.L.M (Cum Laude) U.K.
SESSION TRAIL

Articles 117 to 129 of 1984 Order
 Relationship of Art. 117 & 118
 Articles 119,122,125,126,127,128,129 – their significance in
the context of civil cases?
– Relationship between burden of proof and presumptions
– In civil cases, burden of proof keeps on shifting
– As used in Articles 117 and 118
– Its relation with right to begin
 Standard of proof in civil cases: is preponderance , but even in
civil cases, the standard ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ may apply
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BURDEN OF PROOF
AND PRESUMPTIONS

Onus of Proof!
 When a plaintiff comes to court and asks for certain
relief on the basis of certain facts.
 The onus of proof of those facts has to be on him, for
the relief prayed for cannot be granted unless the
court is able to hold the existence of those facts
proved
 But the law makes provision for certain presumptions
and any party on whom a burden is cast may shift the
onus of proving any fact to the other party by
showing that fact should be presumed to exist.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BURDEN OF PROOF
AND PRESUMPTIONS

Articles of QSO should be read as subject to
these presumptions.
 Rules as to rebuttable presumption are no more
than rules as to burden of proof when the court
presumes the existence of fact, the burden of
proving its existence is on the parties that
asserts its non existence.
 Conversely, when the burden of proving the
fact is on a particular party, the court is
presuming its non existence.
WHAT IS BURDEN OF PROOF?





BOF on the pleadings should not be confused with the burden
of adducing evidence.
Which is described as “shifting”. The BOP on the pleadings
never shifts, it always remains constant.
The initial burden of proving up pima facie case in his favour
is cast on the plaintiff; when he gives such evidence as will
support a prima facie case, the onus shifts on the defendant to
adduce the rebutting evidence to meet the case made out by the
plaintiff.
As the case continue to develop, the onus may shift back again
to the plaintiff.
It is not easy to decide at what particular stage in the course of
the evidence the onus shifts from one side to the other.
BURDEN OF PROOF

When after the entire evidence is adduced, the
court feels it cannot make up its mind as to
which of the version is true.
 It will hold that party on whom the burden lies
has not discharged the burden;
 But if it has on the evidence no difficulty in
arriving at a definite conclusion, than the BOP
on the pleadings recedes into the background.
ONUS OF PROOF

The question of onus of proof loose its importance
when relevant evidence has been adduced and placed
on the record.
 This question becomes material only where the court
finds the evidence so evenly balanced that it can
come to no definite conclusion.
 In such scenario, the rule is that the party on whom
the onus lay must fail.
 But where evidence has been lead by both sides and
considered, the question of onus loose its importance.
BOP IN CIVIL & CRIMINAL CASES

In general, the rules of evidence in civil & criminal
cases are the same, but some provisions in QSO are
peculiar to criminal and other peculiar to civil cases.
(117 and 118)
 Whereas, a civil case a mere prepodenerence of
probability is sufficient base for the decision
 However, in a criminal case persuations of guilt must
amount to such a moral certainty as convenience the
mind of the court beyond all reasonable doubt.
BOP IN CIVIL & CRIMINAL CASES

In criminal case no weight of preponderant
evidence is sufficient, short of that which
excludes all reasonable doubt. The party
accused is entitled to the benefit of the leagl
presumptions in favour of innocence, and in
doubtful cases that may suffice to turn the
scale in his favour.
 This rule has a prudence has infact attained the
force of law founded on the public policy.
READING MATERIAL
 Sardar
Bibi – PLD 1954 Lah 480,
483
 Lakshmanna – AIR 1949 PC 278, 285
 Muhammad Ibrahim – 1980 CLC
296
 Zakaullah – 1991 SCMR 2126, 2133
 Rashid Ahmed Khan – PLD 1994 SC
36