2019 PLP 1693 (CLC)

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.

During proceedings of a suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff, the present petitioner filed an application for sending signatures of the Respondent No. 4 to the finger print expert for comparison, which was duly contested by the respondents/defendants. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 2.3.2018 dismissed the said application. The petitioner being aggrieved of said order filed a civil revision before the learned Revisional Court, but the same was also disposed of with certain directions to the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 17.09.2018. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders, now the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. The grounds urged in the writ petition have been reiterated during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prayer for setting aside of the impugned orders while allowing the writ petition in hand has been made; it has further been prayed that application for comparison of the signatures of Respondent No. 4 may be accepted. Relies on Syed Sharif Ul Hassan through L.Rs. v. Hafiz Muhammad Amin and others (2012 SCMR 1258).

3. Heard.

4. Exercising extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, the Court has only to see whether the lower Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it in a proper way or not and when same is found to have been exercised in a proper way, without committing any illegality or irregularity, the order or judgment called into question needs not to be interfered with. In the present case, it appears that both the learned Courts below have exercised vested jurisdiction in a judicious way keeping in view law on the subject because it is settled principle of law that report of handwriting expert on its own cannot be made basis to discard the direct evidence and when direct evidence is available, there is no need of expert opinion, which otherwise is nothing but confirmatory and explanatory to direct evidence, as has been held in Qazi Abdul Ali and others v. Khawaja Aftab Ahmad (2015 SCMR 284). Moreover, the expert report is not binding upon the Court as has been held in Mrs. Perin J Dinshaw v. Mubarak Ali and another 2016 YLR 251 Lahore; the relevant extract is: Even the report of Expert is an opinion under the law and it is not binding upon the Court. Undoubtedly, the opinion of Handwriting Expert is relevant but it does not amount to conclusive proof, as the opinion of Handwriting Expert is a very weak type of evidence and the Expert's evidence is only confirmatory or explanatory of direct or circumstantial evidence and the confirmatory evidence cannot be given preference where confidence inspiring evidence is available. Light can be taken from the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "2006 SCMR 193 (Mst. Saadat Sultan and others v. Muhammad Zahur Khan, and others)". Apart from the above, it is evident from order of the learned Revisional Court that grievance of the petitioner has been redressed by observing that, .. . with the direction to the learned trial Court to consider the signatures of Defendant No. 2 who has denied the same over vouchers Mark-A and Cheque No. 8186289 bearing Account No. 1626 Exh.P5 and then decide the contention of the petitioner separately after recording its reasons on the basis of which the Court has considered the same as true or false as the case may be. Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 empowers the Court to compare the signatures or thumb impression of any person and by giving specific direction to the learned trial Court, the learned Revisional Court has already protected the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, no Illegality and irregularity to have been committed by the learned Courts below, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, is evident on record. Even the revisional order, in civil litigation, passed in exercise of jurisdiction vested in a Court, cannot be challenged in writ petition. In this regard reliance is placed on Mian Muhammad Hafiz and others v. Aziz Ahmad and others 1980 SCMR 557, Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others 1991 SCMR 970 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Manzoor Ahmad and another PLD 2006 Lahore 738.

5. Case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with utmost respect, has no relevance to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand; therefore, it does not render any assistance or help to the petitioner's case or enhance the cause of the petitioner.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition being without any force and substance stands dismissed in limine. SA/A-46/L Petition dismissed.