LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that oral evidence cannot outweigh documentary proof, as it is a well-established rule of appreciation of evidence that a person may lie, but documents do not.

The court held this in a petition of Muhammad Arif who claimed that a loan receipt was transformed into a sale agreement of a property and asserted, that this document was false, fabricated, and concocted.

The petitioner’s stance was that due to a friendly relationship with the respondent Javaid Khan, he borrowed rupees 1,10,000 from the respondent who in exchange thereof obtained the petitioner’s signatures on stamp paper for the return of the aforesaid amount. He claimed since he is illiterate and was unable to understand the contents of the stamp paper, which was subsequently transformed into a sale agreement.

The respondent Javaid had contested the suit by way of filing a written statement and the trial court passed a decree in his favour.

The court observed that the documentary evidence, which was not objected to at the relevant time, would prevail against oral evidence, regardless of how abundant the latter may be.

Moreover, it is firmly established that oral evidence cannot substitute of documentary evidence, the court said.

When documentary evidence contradicts the oral testimony, the latter cannot be relied upon, the court added.

The court said Article 103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 excluded oral statements made between the parties to any instrument or their representatives. The rationale behind this provision is that inferior evidence should be excluded in the presence of superior evidence, the court added.

The court said a party acknowledging a fact in writing is immune from mischief, failure, and lapse of memory.

While proving the terms thereof as against the terms specifically reduced in writing in an agreement, oral evidence is to be excluded, the court added.

The court noted that the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner were available on the back of stamp paper, which explicitly states that the suit property has been sold to the respondent.

The court also noted that during cross-examination, the petitioner acknowledged that he purchased the stamp paper from the stamp vendor and admitted receiving payment and affixing his signature on the disputed stamp paper.

The court said the appellate decision is based upon a correct appreciation of evidence brought on record.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024