17/12/2025
The relevant provisions of the law related to the power of a Judge of the learned trial court with respect to the production of any document are contained in Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Under the said Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, it has been provided that a Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing. Under the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the word document has also been defined under Article 2(1)(b), wherein it has been provided that document means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
In this manner, the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in the suit as filed by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage dated 11.09.2018, the certified copy of the Nikahnama, reflecting the Nikah of the petitioner with Muhammad Ameer and the certified copy of the Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) can validly be considered as documents. Now the only question which needs to be decided is the question as to whether the production of these documents at this stage of proceedings was necessary to prove a fact in issue or any relevant fact or otherwise. Article 161 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, is also clear that no stage for production of any document has been set and it has not been directed that a document cannot be produced before the learned trial court after a certain stage rather the use of the words “at any time” in the Article makes it abundantly clear that the judge may order the production of a document he considers necessary at any stage.
Now, as mentioned above, the only fact which needs to be considered is whether the production of the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner is necessary in order to discover and obtain proof of facts in issue and relevant facts or otherwise. Under the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, the term “fact” has also been defined under Article 2 of the said order.
As is plentifully clear from the above quoted provisions of the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984, a fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 relating to the relevancy of facts. The provisions related to the relevancy of the facts are provided under Chapter III of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It has been provided that evidence may be provided on facts in issue and relevant facts and furthermore, under Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, it has been provided that facts necessary to explain facts in issue may also be given evidence of. In the present case, it is the stance of respondent No.3 that he was validly married to the petitioner and the fact in issue in the case is that whether the petitioner was r***d by the respondent No.3. The relevant fact, which is necessary to prove the fact in issue in this case, is that whether the respondent No.3 was validly married to the petitioner. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.3 has already questioned the prosecution witnesses; however, the petitioner, by way of production of documents, now also wants to produce before the learned Judge the documents in order to prove the relevant facts. As mentioned above, Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, itself allows the learned Judge to obtain proof of relevant facts by ordering the production of any document, however, it has been provided that the ultimate judgment of the case must be based on a fact duly proved and not otherwise. In this manner, the documents sought to be proved by the petitioner may be received in evidence but the question about their relevancy and proof shall be decided by the learned trial court and it will only be after the declaration of the learned trial court that the said documents were not only relevant but also duly proved that the same would be considered in any manner. Therefore, by merely allowing the petitioner to produce the said documents, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent No.3 in his defence. The ultimate judgment to be passed by the learned trial court, shall be based upon the facts duly proved as provided under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and not otherwise.
Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2025
(Kaneez Bibi Vs. The State and two others)
Date of hearing: 30.09.2025
2025LHC7611
