1994 PLP 1901 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1901 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Shaikh, J' |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1901 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1901 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Shaikh, J'.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1901 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Manzoor Hussain Basra for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 12(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Setting aside decree tin ground of fraud and misrepresentation‑‑‑Application for‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Judgment‑debtor made application for setting aside decree passed against him alleging fraud and misrepresentation ‑‑‑Decree- holder contended that application was made by him for getting signatures of certain 'persons compared with specimen signatures which application was concurrently dismissed by Courts below‑‑‑Application filed by judgment -debtor for setting aside decree against him was pending adjudication and had not been finally decided‑‑‑High Court, in circumstances, declined to interfere in concurrent order of Courts below in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Manzoor Hussain Basra for Respondent No.
3. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1993. In this Constitutional petition the legality of order dated 16‑2‑1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narowal dismissing revision petition of the petitioner against order dated 26‑11‑1990 passed by the learned trial Court for rejection of application filed by the petitioner for getting disputed signatures of Muhammad Afzal and thumb‑impression of Riaysat Ali compared by expert witness with their specimen signatures and thumb- impressions, has been called in question.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 3 made an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside decree passed against him on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation etc. This application was contested by the petitioner decree‑holder. During the pendency of the said application an application was made on 20‑2‑1990 by the respondent for getting the disputed signatures of Muhammad Afzal and thumb‑impression of Riyasat Ali who was alleged to be special attorney of Muhammad Afzal compared with the specimen signatures and the thumb‑impression of these two persons. This application was made at the stage when the said respondent had already closed his evidence excepting his own statement as his own witness. This application was rejected through order dated 26‑i1‑1990 against which a revision petition was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal which has been rejected through order dated 16‑2‑1992 both of which have been challenged in this Constitutional petition.
3. A request for adjournment has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner by his clerk. I am not inclined to adjourn the case. 4. 1 have heard learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and examined both the orders. The main application under section 12(2), C.P.C. has not yet been finally decided. In case the final order is passed against the respondent, he has remedy to challenge the same before higher forum. In case he challenges the said order, he may request the Court to get the disputed signatures and thumb‑ A impressions compared, which request shall be determined in accordance with ' law. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order at this stage in exercise of my discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan therefore, I would refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the request of the petitioner to get the signatures and thumb- impressions compared. .
5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1608/L Petition dismissed.