' Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the trial Court has allowed the respondent to adduce secondary evidence even though conditions precedent for allowing such evidence have not been fulfilled by the respondent. He has referred to the case titled Sardar Baldish v. Mst.
Maqsood Bibi PLD 1994 Lah. 452 to argue that some positive proof is required to be produced by the respondent to establish the existence of the documents in question, before he can be permitted to prove the said documents by means of secondary evidence.
2. Admittedly no positive proof at present is available on record to establish the existence of the two documents in question namely the argument to sell and notice of Talab-e-Ishhad. In these circumstances, the order of the learned trial Court, dated 13-10-1999 allowing production of photo copies of the two documents, is premature. In the first instance, the respondent should prove the existence of the documents. Once the existence of the documents has been established, the respondent may be allowed to produce the documents by way of secondary evidence subject to compliance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.
3. In the above circumstances, the order, dated 13-10-1999 passed by the trial Court is set aside.
This, however, shall not prevent the trial Court from proceeding in the manner indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not press his objection to the impugned order, dated 13-10-1999 to the extent it relates to the list of witnesses submitted by the respondent under Order 16, Rule 1, C . P . C .