2007 PLP 225 (MLD)
ISHTIAQ AHMED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 225 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ISHTIAQ AHMED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 225 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 225 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 225 (MLD) (ISHTIAQ AHMED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rasheed Afzaal Cheema for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXXVII, Rr.2, 3
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of pro note,-'Defendant filed written statement whereupon Trial Court framed issues and adjourned case for evidence of parties
Application filed by defendant for comparison of his thumb-impression on said pro note, had been accepted by the Trial Court
Case of defendant was that he had not received disputed amount from plaintiff , also that pro note was a forged document as same did not bear his signature or thumb-impression
Trial court, in circumstances, had rightly accepted application of defendant for comparison of his thumb-mark on said pro note
Well-reasoned order of the Trial Court not suffering from any illegality or infirmity, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.
This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 11-4-2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sadiqabad whereby application brought by respondent for comparison for his thumb-impressions on pro note from finger print expert was accepted.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that Ishtiaq Ahmad, petitioner filed suit for recovery of Rs.25,000 against the respondent on the basis of pro note, dated 14-12-2002. He (respondent) filed written statement whereupon learned trial Court framed issues and adjourned the case for evidence of parties. On 17-3-2005 respondent/defendant filed application for comparison of his thumb impressions on pro note and after hearing the parties learned trail Court accepted his application wide impugned order. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above petitioner had filed suit for recovery of Rs.25,000 against the respondent on the basis of pro note. The case of respondent is that he has not received disputed amount from petitioner. Also that pro note, dated 14-12-2002 is a forged document and the same does not bear his signatures or thumb impressions. He filed application for comparison of thumb impressions on pro note in question. I find that in the circumstances of the case learned trial Court has rightly accepted his application. Para. No.5 of order, dated 11-4-2005 reads as under: "After considering the above-mentioned ruling in the light of arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that authenticity of witnesses of the plaintiff has still to be discussed in the final judgment. No-doubt, he was not in need to get opinion of Expert as he has produced marginal witnesses and writer but it is right of defendant who denied his thumb impressions to get comparison of those disputed thumb impressions with his admitted thumb-impressions. Under these circumstances, this. application is accepted." It is well-reasoned order. Even otherwise as stated earlier the case of respondent is that pro note, dated 14-12-2002 does not bear his thumb impressions, therefore, his request for comparison is proper. So impugned order is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./I-67/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.