1983 PLP 1980 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus TOWN COMMITTEE; SHAHKOT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1980 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus TOWN COMMITTEE; SHAHKOT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1980 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1980 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1980 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus TOWN COMMITTEE; SHAHKOT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abid Hassan Minto for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Rasool for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 1st November, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑ ‑‑ S. 67‑Civil Procedure ' Code (V of 1908) S. 115‑Signature proof of‑Petitioner specifically denying signatures of defendants on various documents and asking for comparison by a Handwriting Expert‑‑Trial Court refusing to allow expert evidence on ground that it was intended to prolong final destination of suit‑Trial Court, held, acted in its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.‑[Evidence]. (b) Evidence Act (I of 11872)‑ ‑‑ S. 67 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Signature, proof of‑Application of petitioner to call for expert evidence for comparison of signatures of defendants‑Refusal by trial Court Counsel for parties making joint statement that they have no objection if matter referred to a Handwriting Expert‑High Court setting aside order of trial Court and allowing application. [Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 67 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Signature, proof of‑Application of petitioner to call for expert evidence for comparison of signatures of defendants‑Refusal by trial Court Counsel for parties making joint statement that they have no objection if matter referred to a Handwriting Expert‑High Court setting aside order of trial Court and allowing application. [Evidence]. Abid Hassan Minto for Petitioner. Ghulam Rasool for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing : 1st November, 1982. This revision petition calls in question the order dated 13th March, 1978 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the application of the petitioner for comparison of the signatures of the defendants on various documents was rejected on the, ground that it was only intended to prolong the final determination of the suit.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 1 am of the view, that since the petitioner has specifically denied the signatures of various documents, it was in the interest of justice to allow the application. The petitioner had a right to produce a witness to prove the document, and ask for handwriting expert to compare the signatures and make a report about the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures. The trial Court has, therefore, acted in its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in refusing to summon the witness on the ground that it was intended to prolong the final determination of the suit. Had this petition been accepted by the. trial Court, the case would have been finally disposed of long ago.
3. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the parties have n objection for acceptance of the application dated 9th June, 1975 made by the petitioner in which a prayer has been made for referring the matter to the handwriting expert for examination and report as t the authenticity of the signatures appearing on the file of the civil Court and the Controlling Authority. 1 am also inclined to agree with the joint statement made . by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 13th July. 1982 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, is set aside. The result is that the application dated 9th June, .1975, is allowed. The petitioner is directed to, produce the handwriting expert before the trial Court on 1st December,' 1982 at his own responsibility ; on which date the handwriting expert after examining the record of the trial Court in the presence of the learned trial Judge, shall take further necessary steps for comparison of the signatures. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the evidence of the parties have already been recorded and the case is ripe for arguments. If that is so, the learned trial Court is directed to finally dispose of this matter within one month of the recording of the statement of the handwriting expert intended to be produced by the petitioner. With these observations, the revision petition is accepted with no order as to costs. M. X. H. Petition accepted.