1983 PLP 2862 (CLC)

Jori Ullah Khan for Petitioners. Mlan Abdur Rashid fof Respondent. Date of hearing:16th May,1983 This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 486 and 487 of 1983 as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. Z. The relevant facts of the case are that Habib Bank Ltd., Shaheed Road, Jhang Sadar instituted two suits; one against M/s. Muhammad Islam Iftikhar Ahmad & Company and Muhammad Anwar its proprietor for the recovery of Rs.60,950 and the other against M/s. Pak Trading Company, Jhang Sadar through its Managing Partner Seth Muhammad Anwar and three other partners ,for the recovery of Rs.59,880.54. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 25‑4‑1982 and the case was adjourned for the evidence of the defendants. On 27‑6‑1982 defendant No. 1 in the suits filed two applications before the learned Senior Civil Judge for comparison of signatures on the disputed documents with specimen signatures of Muhammad Anwar sought to be taken by the Court. The applications were resisted by the Habib Bank Ltd. (defendant No. 1). The learned Civil Judge dismissed the applications vide order dated 3rd February, 1983. Hence these petitions.

3. Civil Revision No. 487 of 1983 has been filed by M/s. Pak Trading Company, Jhang Sadar, and Muhammad Anwar as its partner. Muhammad Mushtaq, Muhammad Jamil and Abdur Rashid partners of M/s. Pak Trading Company have been cited as respondents Nos. 2 to

4. Respondent No. 4 has been served personally whereas respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have been served by means of affixation of notice on the last address given in the suit. None has appeared on their behalf. It is pointed out that respondent .4 Nos. 2 to 4 are only pro forma respondents in this case: It appears that they are content with the action taken by M/s. Pak Trading Company of which they are partners. I am, therefore, satisfied that no prejudice will b caused to the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 when they themselves have not agitated against the impugned order in their capacity as partners of the aforesaid firm.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge has rejected the petitioners' applications which would shut them to produce evidence in support of their cases. It is submitted that the documents mentioned in these petitions were pleaded forged in para. 7 of the respective written statements, therefore, the petitioners are to lead evidence to show that the signatures of Muhammad Anwar on the disputed documents were forged. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge cannot deny the petitioners' opportunity of leading evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that it is not necessary for the learned trial Court to summon the hand writing expert if it is not considered essential for comparison of the disputed documents with other documents of unquestioned credibility on the record.

6. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and find that although it is not obligatory for the learned Civil Judge to summon the handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures o Muhammad Anwar petitioner on the questioned documents and it is with his competency to compare the signatures on admitted documents with' those 17 on disputed documents but the petitioners cannot be prevented to lea evidence in support of their cases. The evidence of the handwriting expert will be merely an opinion on the disputed signatures and it is for the Court to form final opinion regarding the correctness or otherwise of the allegation of forgery.

7. In the interest of justice it is directed that if the petitioners wan to produce handwriting expert as one of the witnesses on their behalf the learned trial Court shall allow the expert to compare signatures on already admitted documents and. exhibited on the record for instance the signature G of Muhammad Anwar on the specimen signatures card ; and on the opening of account form, etc. with the signatures on the disputed documents for furnishing his opinion in respect thereto. However, the petitioners' prayer for obtaining specimen signatures, in Court, of Muhammad Anwar and their comparison by handwriting expert with disputed signatures is rejected.

8. These petitions are partly allowed subject to the observation made above.

9. There shall be no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Petition partly accepted: