What is the concept of rights of citizens in England in the absence of written constitution there? How the right of Englishman are enforced. Discuss (1998)
1- Introduction:
“U.K. Constitution is Combination of Conventions in which the Government machinery perform its functions for many years and protect the fundamental rights of individual”.
(Prof. Munro)
The right of individual are interlink with the state which does not create them but recognizes them. The U.K. Constitution is unwritten one and fundamental rights are not well-explained in it.
2- Meaning Of Right
I. According To Prof. Salmond:

Q. What is meant by evidence? Explain its kinds with special reference to primary and secondary evidence. (2001),(1998),(1998 Supl)
1. Introduction:
Evidence of Evidential facts are adduced by the Court in order to prove the facts in issue. It is the probative force of these evidential facts, which prove the principal facts. Evidence is the most important stage of litigation, where the parties has to prove their assertions and it helps the Court in determining and ascertaining the truth of the facts.
2. Definition Of Evidence:
I. According To Salmond:

Q. What is meant by evidence? Explain its kinds with special reference to primary and secondary evidence. (2001),(1998),(1998 Supl)
1. Introduction:
Evidence of Evidential facts are adduced by the Court in order to prove the facts in issue. It is the probative force of these evidential facts, which prove the principal facts. Evidence is the most important stage of litigation, where the parties has to prove their assertions and it helps the Court in determining and ascertaining the truth of the facts.
2. Definition Of Evidence:
I. According To Salmond:
“Evidence may be defined as any fact which possesses probative force.”
(i) Meaning of Probative force:

A probative force means the quality by virtue of which the Court presumed that one fact is evidence of another fact.
II. According To Phlpson:
“Evidence, as the term is used in judicial proceedings means the facts testimony and documents which may be legally received in other to prove or disprove the fact under enquiry.”
III. According To Article 3 Of Q.S.O 1984”
“Evidence includes all statement which the Court permits to be made before it by witness in relation to matters of fact under enquiry.”
3. Kinds Of Evidence:
Following are the different kinds of evidence.
I. Judicial Or Extra-Judicial Evidence:
(i) Judicial Evidence:
Judicial evidence is that which is produced before the Court. It consists of all facts which are actually brought to the knowledge and observation of the Court. It may be either oral testimony, documents material, produced before the Court.
(ii) Extra-Judicial Evidence:
Extra-Judicial evidence is that which dose not come directly under judicial cognizance and it includes all evidential facts which known to the Court only by way of inference form some form of judicial evidence.
Example:
If a document is actually produced before the Court, it is judicial evidence. If it is known to the Court only through a copy or report of the witnesses who has heard it, it is extra-judicial evidence.
II. Personal Or Real Evidence:
(i) Personal Evidence:
Personal evidence is the testimony of witness. It may be either oral or written and judicial or extra-judicial.
(ii) Real Evidence:
Anything which is believed for any other reason than that someone has said so, is believed on real evidence.
According to Bentham:
“Real evidence denotes all evidence of which any object belonging to the class of things as the source, person being included in respect of such properties as belong to them in common with things.”
III. Primary And Secondary Evidence:
(i) Primary Evidence:
Primary evidence is the immediate evidence of the principal fact. A document is the primary evidence of its contents.
(ii) Secondary Evidence:
Secondary evidence is evidence which may be given under circumstances in the absence of that better evidence which the law requires to be given first. If may be in the form of a report or an oral account of the original evidence or a copy of a document.
IV. Direct Or Circumstantial Evidence:
(i) Direct Evidence:
Direct evidence is testimony relating immediately to the principal fact. It is a evidence of a fact perceived by witness with his own senses.
(ii) Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which relates to a series of facts others than the fact-in-issue, but which are closely connected with that in such a way that it leads to some definite conclusion. It is more important in criminal law, because its very rare that direct evidence may be found in criminal law.
Example:
If ‘A’ says that he saw ‘B’ committing the murder, the evidence of ‘A’ is direct evidence but if he says that he saw ‘B’ leaving the place where the murder was committed the evidence of ‘A’ is circumstantial evidence.
V. Original And Hearsay Evidence:
(i) Original evidence is that which possesses an independent probative force of its own i.e., witness states want he has seen or heard with his own eyes or ears.
(ii) Hearsay evidence:
Hearsay evidence is not based on the personal knowledge of the witnesses. He makes the statement on the basis of the statement of another person. As a general rule, it is inadmissible in evidence but is this general rule there are also some exception. In Pakistan, Article 71 of Q.S.O provides the general rule that hearsay is on evidence.
4. Evaluation Of Evidence:
The law of evidence deals with the production of evidence and its evaluation. Many rule have been land down to weigh the value of the evidence produced in the Court.
I. Conclusive Proof:
It consists of fact which such probative force that they cannot be contradicted. When one fact is declared by law to be the conclusive proof of another fact, the Court shall on proof of regard the other as proved.
Example:
Article 128 of Q.S.O., provides that if a child is born during wedlock not earlier that expiration of six lunar months form the date of marriage or within 2 years after its dissolution and the mother remains unmarried, is shall be conclusive proof that he is legitimates son of that man.
II. Presumptive Proof:
It means such proof which may be considered sufficient if there is no other proved fact to the contrary. In such a case, it raises a conditional or rebuttable presumption.
Example:
The presumption of innocence is a rebuttable presumption.
III. Insufficient Evidence:
If law prescribes a certain amount of evidence to be absolutely necessary and evidence produced dose not come up to the necessary standard, the evidence is considered to be insufficient. It dose not raises any presumption conclusive. It dose not raises any presumption conclusive or conditional.
Example:
In Hudood cases, testimony of one witness in insufficient.
IV. Exclusive Evidence:
In such case, certain fact alone are recognized as being the only evidence of certain other facts. No other evidence is permitted by law.
Example:
A written contract can generally be proved by the production of writing itself.
V. No Evidence:
There are certain facts which have absolutely no probative force at all. They can neither be produced in the Court nor acted upon.
Example:
The bad character of accused is irrelevant in criminal proceeding and it become relevant only if evidence has been given to show that he possesses a good character.
5. Conclusion:
To conclude, I can say, that evidence is the source of proving or disproving any fact and it has been classified into many kinds. Many rules have been laid down for the production of evidence and for the valuation of evidence and it just render the task of proof easier.

audi alteram partem
English meaning: Hear the other side
Also called the Rule of Fair Hearing.
This principle is a Rule of Law and a part of the Principles of Natural Justice. It says that no one shall be condemned unheard.

"the thing has been decided" The principle that a final judgement of a competent court is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action.
The Doctrine of Res-judicata is based on the following three maxims:

1. Nemo Debet Lis Vexari Pro Una Et Eaden Causa – No man should be vexed twice over for the same cause;
2. Interest Republicate Ut Sit Finis Litium- It is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation; and
3. Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur – A judicial decision must be accepted as correct.
The doctrine of Res Judicata has been explained in the simplest possible manner by Das Gupta, J., in the case of Satyadhyan vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi in the following words: