2001 PLP 834 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 6th July, 1999 The judgments of both the Courts below are at variance. This was a suit for the recovery of 'Mehr' money amounting to Rs.ten thousand. The suit was dismissed with cots by Mr. Zaheer‑ud‑Din Chaudhari, Civil Judge, Chiniot vide his judgment and decree dated 23‑10‑1995. It was set aside by the learned First Appellate Court presided over by Mr. Sagheer Ahmed Qadri, learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot through his judgment and decree dated 1‑7‑1996. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.

2. According to the plaintiff/respondent, she was married to the petitioner Muhammad Manzoor on 20‑6‑1981. That the behaviour of the petitioner towards the plaintiff was unfriendly. That on 15‑8‑1981 the petitioner had undertaken through an agreement to pay an amount of Rs. ten thousand as 'Mehr' in case of 'Talaq' to the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner having divorced the respondent/plaintiff, she was asking for the recovery of 'Mehr'. It was the case of the petitioner that he had not agreed to pay the 'Mehr' amounting to Rs.10,

000. That rather he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.32.50. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned the Trial Court. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for recovery of Rs.10,000 as her dower amount as prayed for? OPP. (2) Relief,

3. The Iqrarnama in question is Exh.P.1 and two attesting witnesses Muhammad Ismail and Allah Bakhsh P. Ws. l and 2 appeared in the Court in proof of this document. Respondent Mst. Kaneez appeared as her own witness and supported her case of 'Mehr' on the basis of Exh. P.1 (Iqrarnama) and asked for the payment of Rs.10,000 after she had been divorced by the petitioner.

4. According to petitioner Muhammad Manzoor he had not signed Exh.P.1 and called it a forged document. That as he had divorced the plaintiff/respondent, she filed the suit with a view to harass him. Nikahnama D.1 was produced on behalf of the petitioner.

5. The Iqrarnama P.1 was also sent to the expert for the comparison of the signatures. Malik Muhammad Ashraf D.W.3 the Handwriting Expert stated that the signatures of the petitioner on Nikahnama D.2 and he found dissimilarities. However, he stated before the Court that he would provide the details of such dissimilarities. According to the First Appellate Court, he failed to provide the details, referred to above. The First Appellate Court also compared the signature of the petitioner with the specimen on various other documents available on the file of the Court and came to the conclusion that the petitioner every time signed in a different style. He especially focussed on the signature of the petitioner on the Iqrarnama P.1. and Nikahnama Exh.D. 1 . He found these two were quite similar although not absolutely.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Handwriting Expert did not support the case of the respondent/plaintiff and that in case he did not produce the Photo Analysis Chart, the matter should have been referred to another expert for his opinion. That there was a dicotomy between the statements of the marginal witnesses with respect to the venue where the Iqrarnama was scribed. Statement of petitioner Manzoor is reproduced below:‑‑

7. The learned counsel for the respondent mainly relied on the statement of the petitioner Muhammad Manzoor D. W.2 (Underlined by this Court), the 'learned counsel argued that this was an admission on the part of the petitioner. He further contended that minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses have to be overlooked. That there was no cogent explanation as to why the attesting witnesses would depose falsely for a document which is only worth Rs.ten thousand. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner signed Exh.P.1 and Exh.D.i in English while he also signed otherwise in Urdu and the finding of the learned First Appellate Court that he signed differently and that the signatures on Exh.D.1 and Exh.P.1 were quite similar was based on a correct analysis. That the testimony of the attesting witnesses was not impeached so as to discredit their evidence I altogether.

8. While sitting as a Court of error this Court also has to see the circumstances on which? the findings .of the Courts below are to be appreciated.

9. Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the judgments of ‑the Courts below it is felt that very convincing reasons have been advanced by the First Appellate Court while passing the judgment impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material irregularity or infirmity in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. Consequently, I do not find any merit and substance in this Revision Petition which is dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the First. Appellate Court are upheld. Parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑461/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.