2013 PLP 468 (YLR)
Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAISALABAD and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 468 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Shahid Saeed, J |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAISALABAD and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 468 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 468 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Shahid Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 468 (YLR) (Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAISALABAD and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Jehangir Wahla for Petitioner.
- Sardar Muhammad Ramzan and Ch. Muhammad Imran Bhatti for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.84
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--Constitutional petition
Suit for Specific performance of agreement to sell
Second comparison
Contention of the (defendant)/petitioner was that alleged agreement to sell was yet to be proved by the (plaintiff)/respondent and comparison of signatures already having been done, a second comparison would serve to frustrate the proceedings of the Trial Court
Comparison of signatures had already been conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, but the second comparison was not barred under the law and may be done keeping in view the requirements of the case
High Court directed the plaintiff to present the agreement to sell in original before the Trial Court so that the defendant could also have a look at the same
Constitutional petition was dismissed, accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in a suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.2 on the basis of an agreement to sell, written statement was filed and" issues out of pleadings of the parties were framed. Then the respondent filed an application for comparison of signatures of the execution of the alleged agreement to sell with certain documents mentioned in the application. Learned counsel maintains that earlier comparison of signatures of the executant was done by Forensic Science Laboratory and according to the report of said Laboratory; the specimen signatures of the executant/ petitioner did not match with those present on the alleged agreement to sell. The sole grievance of the petitioner agitated before this Court is that the alleged agreement to sell has yet to be proved by the plaintiff through cogent evidence and since the comparison has already been done, therefore, at this stage, the second comparison will serve no useful purpose but frustrate the proceedings of the trial Court. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court had rejected the application in question while the learned revisional court allowed the same which is illegal and without any lawful authority.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that in order to dig out the truth, comparison of signatures of executant of agreement to sell is essential.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Though the comparison has already been conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory but the second comparison is not barred under the law and may be done keeping in view the requirements of the case. I am in consonance with the observation of learned revisional court that there is no harm in second comparison of signatures. The case is still at initial stage and the evidence is yet to be recorded by the learned trial Court. The respondent/plaintiff is directed to submit agreement to sell in original before the trial Court so that the defendant may also look into the same. Thereafter, the learned trial Court shall get comparison of signatures of the executant with the documents mentioned in the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the purpose.
5. Viewed above, this writ petition is without any force which is accordingly dismissed. KMZ/M-75/L Petition dismissed.