1991 PLP 1682 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 1st April, 1991. This petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. arises out of a civil suit filed by the respondent under Order 37 of the C.P.C. for recovery of money against the petitioner which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhang.

2. During the course of hearing of that suit an application was filed on 29th September, 1988 by the petitioner for having disputed signatures on the promissory note compared with the admitted signatures of the petitioner. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 3rd of December, 1988.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision C.R. ‑No.4 of 1989 which was accepted by this Court on 6th March, 1989 and the application filed by the petitioner for having the signatures examined by the handwriting expert was allowed subject to payment of Rs.500 as costs. It was further observed that the respondent shall have a right to produce evidence in rebuttal. This is vide the judgment of this Court dated 6th of March, 1989.

4. It appears that in pursuance to the remand order the comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the petitioner was carried out by the Examiner of Questioned Documents Technical Service, Crimes Branch, Lahore who submitted his report opining that the signatures were not that of the petitioner. Strangely enough the trial Court proceeded to direct the parties to submit their objections to the report. No objections were filed by the petitioner but the respondents objected to the report on various grounds. On these objections issues were framed by the Additional District Judge who proceeded to record the evidence of the respondent on these objections. The petitioner had not filed any list of witnesses to be examined by him on these objections. He consequently submitted an application for permission to file the list. This application was rejected by the Additional District Judge on 4th of December, 1989. Hence this petition.

5. From the facts stated above it is evident that in the earlier round of litigation this Court had allowed the petitioner to have his signatures compared by an expert who submitted his report. The next step which the Court was required to take under the law was to fix the case for statement of the Handwriting Expert. Strangely enough and for reasons which are not discernible, the Additional District Judge proceeded to call for objections on the report of the Handwriting Expert. This procedure adopted by him is novel and unknown to law. It is regrettable that an officer of the seniority of Additional District Judge should have adopted such a procedure which has resulted in wastage of public time and unnecessary expense and further litigation, for the, parties.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties there is no doubt that the proceedings taken by the Additional District Judge subsequent to submission of the report by the Handwriting Expert are illegal and are declared to be so. The Additional District Judge shall now proceed with the suit by allowing the petitioner to examine the Handwriting Expert as a witness. The respondent shall be at liberty to cross‑examine him as also to lead evidence in rebuttal, if he so desires. It is to be noted that the suit which was filed under summary procedure has been allowed to linger for one reason or the other for the last three years and despite the order passed by this Court on 6th of March, 1989 directing the Additional District Judge to decide the suit within three months, it has not been disposed of. It is again directed that the suit be disposed of within two months if necessary holding day‑to‑day proceeding within two months from today. A compliance of this order shall be reported to this Court. H.B.T./U‑59/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.