1997 PLP 2584 (MLD)
ALHAMAD COTTON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2584 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | ALHAMAD COTTON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2584 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 2584 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2584 (MLD) (ALHAMAD COTTON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taki Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 59‑‑‑Opinion of Expert‑‑‑On filing suit for recovery of amount by plaintiff, Trial Court directed that signatures on disputed document be sent for comparison‑‑‑Order of Trial Court was challenged by defendant contending that opinion of Expert could not have been obtained prior to recording of evidence‑‑ Contention of defendant was repelled as nothing was available in Art. 59 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 which obliged Court to postpone obtaining opinion of expert till such time as evidence had been completed by parties‑‑‑No illegality, thus had been committed by Trial Court in allowing plaintiff to obtain opinion of Expert. Ram Narain Sherma v. Emperor AIR 1932 Lah. 481 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Ram Narain Sherma v. Emperor AIR 1932 Lah. 481 ref. Taki Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. This petition under section 115, C.P.C. arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs.7,20,000‑ filed by the respondent against the petitioner during the course of hearing of which on an application made by the respondent/plaintiff the Trial Court on 11‑12‑1994 directed that the signatures on the disputed document be sent for comparison.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Ram Narain Sherma v. Emperor (AIR 1932 Lah. 481) has contended that the opinion of the expert could not have been obtained prior to recording of evidence.
3. I regret my inability to agree with the learned counsel. There is nothing in Article 59 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984 which obliges the Court to postpone obtaining Expert's opinion till such time as the evidence has been completed by the parties. Indeed report of the Expert has to form part of evidence and, therefore, has to be obtained before the evidence is concluded According to the learned counsel himself at the time when the application was made by the respondent for comparison of signatures the case was posted for evidence of the plaintiff. There is thus no illegality committed by the Trial Court in allowing the respondent to obtain expert's opinion.
4. The case relied upon by the learned counsel is of no avail to him as what has been held therein is that the report could only be taken into consideration while forming an opinion as to the genuineness of the disputed document after recording evidence. Naturally once report is received and evidence of the Expert is recorded it shall be considered at the time of final decision of the suit alongwith other evidence recorded. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑48/L Revision dismissed.