ί C.L.R. 1982 June 21 [HADJIANASTASSIOU, LORIS, PIKIS, JJ.] ZENON HADJIPAPATRYFONOS, Appellant-Plaintiff, ELENI PARTAKI AND ANOTHER, Respondents-Defendants. (Civil Appeal No. 6149). 5 10 15 20 25 Civil Procedure—Evidence—Trial in civil cases—Burden of proof is on the plaintiff—Trial Judge labouring under the misappre hension that such burden can only be discharged by reference to oral testimony of plaintiff's witnesses-—Whereas true position is that evidence must be evaluated in its entirety including such documentary evidence which has been adduced before the Court— Retrial orderedon this ground and on the ground that trial Judge totally ignored the implications of the contention that respondentdefendant 1 was a displaced debtor within the meaning of the Debtors Relief (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1979 (Law 24/79). The appellant in this appeal challenged the findings of the trial Judge as being unjustified having regard to the evidence adduced as a whole because he failed to pay sufficient heed to an application, supported by an affidavit, of respondentdefendant 1, wherein she impliedly admitted the debt, subjectmatter of these proceedings, and, also invoked the provisions of the Debtors Relief (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1979 (Law 24/79) as being a displaced debtor. Held, that although this Court agrees with the ιrial Judge that the burden of proving in a civil case is on the appellantplaintiff, nevertheless he laboured under the misapprehension that such burden can only be discharged by reference to oral testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, whereas the true position indeed is thatevidence must be evaluated in its entiretyincluding such documentary evidence which has been adduced before the Court in determining whether such burden has been dis355 HadjiPapatryfonos τ.Partaki
(1982)charged; and thai,inevitably, a retrial has to be ordered sothat the evidence may be appraised in the proper perspective. Held, further, that another reason for the retrial is that the Judge totally ignored the implications of the contention that the respondent-defendant 1 is a displaced debtor and if that wereaccepted,theclaim of the appellantwould be unsustainable in view of the provisions of Law 24/
- 5 Appeal allowed. Retrial ordered. Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against thejudgment of the District Court of Nicosia (A. Ioannides, D.J.) dated the 14th June, 1980, (Action No. 1453/78) whereby his claim for C£175.—for the sale of animals to the defendants was dismissed. A. Eftychiou, for the appellant, Respondent 1 appears in person. HADJIANASTASSIOU J. gave the following judgment of the Court. In the present appeal the findings of the Court are challenged as being unjustified having regard to the evidence adduced as a whole. The complaint is that the learned trial 20 Judge failed to pay sufficient heed to exhibit 1, which is an appli cation supported by an affidavit of the respondent-defendant 1 before the trial Court, wherein she impliedly admits the debt subject matter of the present proceedings, and also invokes the provisions of Law 24/79 as being a displaced person on the 25 other. Although we agree with the trial Judge that the burden of proving in a civil case is on the appellant-plaintiff before us, nevertheless, he laboured under the misapprehension that such burden can only be discharged by reference to oral testimony 30 of plaintiff's witnesses; whereas the true position indeed is that evidence must be evaluated in its entirety including such documentary evidence which has been adduced before the Court in determining whether such burden has been discharged. Inevitably, a retrial has to be ordered so that the evidence may 35 be appraised in the proper perspective. Another reason, in our view, for the retrial is that the Judge totally ignored the implications of the contention that the lespondent-defendant 356 10 15 1 C.L.R. HadjiPapatryfonos v. Partakl Hadjianastassloa J. 1 is a displaced debtor and if that were accepted, the claim of the appellant would be unsustainable in view of the provisions of Law 24/
- Forthereasonswehavegivenretrialisorderedbefore another 5 Judge and in the particular circumstances we are not making an order as to costs in the present appeal, but costs before the trial Court to be costs in cause. Order accordingly. 10 Appeal allowed. Retrial ordered. Order for costs as above. 357