Comparison of signatures
Comparison of signatures legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Assertion of the plaintiffs/petitioners was that transaction of sale was settled with the defendant / respondent and agreement and receipt were scribed, yet said stance was strongly controverted by the latter while raising serious allegations with regard to its genuineness as well as transaction detailed therein
Plaintiffs were concurrently non-suited
Contention of the petitioners / plaintiffs was that as per desire of the very defendant /respondent, his signatures over alleged agreement and receipt were compared with through an expert, thus no further proof was required to establish their construction as well as veracity
Validity
Record revealed that though the disputed documents were referred to the Forensic Lab for comparison, which after some drill-work submitted positive Report, but admittedly its maker was not called for to prove the same, which per se was not admissible and was rightly ignored from being taken into consideration by the fora below
Moreover, it is always risky to base the findings of genuineness of writing or signature on expert's opinion, because such like report cannot be taken as conclusive proof
Even otherwise, a document not part of judicial record can only be proved by examining direct affirmative evidence and any secondary or other mode cannot be taken as a substitute to the former mode of proof, thus the alleged report was of no help to the petitioners
No material irregularity/illegality as well as jurisdictional defect or mis-reading of evidence was found in the impugned judgments of two Courts below ;thus , no case of interference was made out
Revision filed by plaintiffs , being merit-less, was dismissed in limine.
Claim of the appellant/plaintiff was that on the request of respondents/defendants he arranged a loan of ten million rupees for which a guarantee agreement and promissory notes were executed
Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that he failed to prove execution of alleged documents
Validity
Record revealed that respondents had strongly denied the execution of both the agreement and promissory notes so much so that they filed an application under Art. 60 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for analysis of documents from the Forensic Science Lab ('the FSL'), in which regard, in the opinion of expert, (appellant') asserted signatures (in Urdu as well as in English) of both the respondents did not tally with the specimen/routine signatures supplied by them
Although the initial presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act 1881') that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn, or accepted or endorsed for consideration, yet the said presumption was rebuttable, but in the present case, the respondents had straight away denied the execution of alleged promissory notes, therefore, the appellant had to discharge the said burden that the promissory notes had been duly executed and signed by the respondents
Opinion by the FSL after analysis of documents created serious doubts regarding execution of the promissory notes
Appellant had failed to prove payment to the respondents and execution of promissory notes
Contents of the promissory notes read that payment in millions was made, surprisingly, "in cash" at Court premises (Katchehri), therefore, the complete edifice upon which the appellant had built his case stood crumbled
Even alleged agreement having been exhibited by the appellant was not notarized in accordance with applicable laws which created another doubt regarding its authenticity
Even the Oath Commissioner, who according to the appellant had attested promissory notes, was not produced
Appellant also failed to prove his source and capacity to make payment, therefore, the presumption contained in S. 118 of the Act, 1881 stood rebutted
No infirmity in reasoning and no perversity in interpretation of relevant provisions of law had been noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed the Trial Court
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Claim of the appellant/plaintiff was that on the request of respondents/defendants he arranged a loan of ten million rupees for which a guarantee agreement and promissory notes were executed
Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that he failed to prove execution of alleged documents
Validity
Record revealed that respondents had strongly denied the execution of both the agreement and promissory notes so much so that they filed an application under Art. 60 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for analysis of documents from the Forensic Science Lab ('the FSL'), in which regard, in the opinion of expert, (appellant') asserted signatures (in Urdu as well as in English) of both the respondents did not tally with the specimen/routine signatures supplied by them
Although the initial presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act 1881') that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn, or accepted or endorsed for consideration, yet the said presumption was rebuttable, but in the present case, the respondents had straight away denied the execution of alleged promissory notes, therefore, the appellant had to discharge the said burden that the promissory notes had been duly executed and signed by the respondents
Opinion by the FSL after analysis of documents created serious doubts regarding execution of the promissory notes
Appellant had failed to prove payment to the respondents and execution of promissory notes
Contents of the promissory notes read that payment in millions was made, surprisingly, "in cash" at Court premises (Katchehri), therefore, the complete edifice upon which the appellant had built his case stood crumbled
Even alleged agreement having been exhibited by the appellant was not notarized in accordance with applicable laws which created another doubt regarding its authenticity
Even the Oath Commissioner, who according to the appellant had attested promissory notes, was not produced
Appellant also failed to prove his source and capacity to make payment, therefore, the presumption contained in S. 118 of the Act, 1881 stood rebutted
No infirmity in reasoning and no perversity in interpretation of relevant provisions of law had been noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed the Trial Court
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Respondent / beneficiary, to establish genuineness of his hub document, had a chance to make request for the comparison of alleged signatures of the donor available over memo of unregistered gift, especially when, petitioners claimed it to be forged, fictitious one, but he did not opt to do so
Opinion of expert was one of the modes of producing evidence and if the said report was properly proved, same could be used as corroborative piece of evidence
By not restoring to said exercise, respondent/plaintiff himself incurred adverse presumption against him.
Under provisions of Art. 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 court enjoys plenary powers to compare signatures itself along with relevant record to come to a fair and just conclusion.
Plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property and sought cancellation of sale deed as a result of fraud and had also sought recovery of possession
Defendant raised specific plea of bona fide purchaser on the basis of agreement to sell
Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of plaintiff
Validity
Defendant took a specific stance that while exercising agreement to sell he had paid sale consideration to plaintiff in presence of two witnesses
Defendant only produced a certificate of Bank to the extent of issuance of cheque, not as a pay order or a proof of payment through which it could be justified that certain amount was transferred in the account of plaintiff
Burden of proof was upon defendant but the same had not been discharged
Defendant merely placed copy of agreement on record, which was signed by two witnesses, one of whom was son of defendant who had been produced before Court, while the other attesting witness was not produced nor even known
Plaintiff produced original passport before Lower Appellate Court as well as before High Court for the purpose of comparison
High Court considered the original passport of plaintiff containing his signatures, which proved that the signatures available on record were different as observed from the naked eyes
Lower Appellate Court had rightly formulated opinion regarding difference of signatures of plaintiff
High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. was in consonance with the findings of Lower Appellate Court
Defendant failed to place on record any exception or strong reason for interference in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court
Fraud was played by defendant in connivance with Capital Development Authority officials by using an imaginary name
Claim of defendant that he was bona fide purchaser was not proved on record nor even sale was justified
Transfer of suit property in favour of defendant was not proved on record
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Banking Court proceeded to compare signatures of defendants on disputed documents with identity card and petition for leave to defend and such course was available to court under Art. 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984
Comparison of signatures could be made with original documents but original documents disputed by defendant were neither produced nor ordered to be produced
Defendant could not be non-suited merely for reason that no effort was made to seek comparison of signatures from Handwriting Expert
Such exercise, if at all intended, could be undertaken once leave to defend was allowed and only then an interlocutory application could be filed
Banking Court had discretion to seek verification of signatures by procuring report of Handwriting Expert for opinion upon grant of leave to defend if it had considered that substantial question of law and fact was raised
Eligibility of questions of law and fact under S. 10(9) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was qualified by enunciating that all such questions of law and fact which required evidence had entitled defendant to grant of leave to defend
High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Banking Court and unconditional leave to defend was granted
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Plaintiff filed suit for recovery under O. XXXVII, C.P.C. on basis of pronote claiming that defendants, having executed agreement and promissory note in his favour for payment of money, had failed to pay the same
Both courts below decreed the suit
Contention raised by plaintiff was that presumption of truth was attached to promissory note under S.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Defendants took the plea that said agreement and promissory notes were to be attested by two marginal witnesses under Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, whereas promissory note admittedly was not signed by any witness
Validity
Execution of documents could not be proved through cogent and credible evidence, as there were material discrepancies between oral and documentary evidence
None of the witnesses had deposed that any amount was paid in their presence
Plaintiffs had not produced best available evidence and negative inference could be drawn against plaintiffs for withholding the same
Plaintiffs failed to establish the amount claimed to be outstanding against defendants
Report of handwriting expert showed that signatures of defendant did not tally with his signatures on disputed documents
Trial Court, having not relied on the handwriting expert report, failed to give its own finding as to comparison of signatures of defendant
If Trial Court was not satisfied with report of handwriting expert, it should have given its own findings in that regard
Impugned judgment and decree were not sustainable and the same were set aside
Appeal was accepted in circumstances.
Petitioner was facing trial on allegation of dishonestly issuing bank cheque which was dis-honoured on presentation-Petitioner denied issuing of any cheque and his application for getting comparison of his signatures on cheque from Hand Writing Expert :vas dismissed by Trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court
Validity
Power of Trial Court to itself compare cheque in dispute with admitted signatures of complainant (petitioner), as envisaged under Art.84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, did not debar Trial Court form sending the cheque for comparison to Finger Print Expert
Expert evidence was admissible in evidence under Art.59 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and if such evidence was not available, only then Trial Court could itself compare the cheque with admitted signatures of petitioner-Petitioner was entitled to fair trial, in view of Art.10-A of the Constitution-Denial on the part of Trial Court to send cheque it: dispute to Finger Print Expert, was violative of the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984
Trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them under law and had illegally dismissed application submitted by petitioner-Petition was allowed in circumstances.
Best evidence to prove the authenticity of signatures would be of handwriting expert who had examined signatures on the disputed documents with signatures on the admitted one or with signatures taken before the court
Matter was still in progress and evidence was yet to be recorded
Trial Court had erred in holding that documents in question would benefit the defendant and plaintiff was not required to prove the same
Such observations were against the requirement of law as it was a pre-mature stage and no observation could be made with regard to any document without recording of evidence in such respect
Court was competent to compare disputed signatures with the admitted one of any party to ascertain its genuineness but same was not advisable
Impugned order of Trial Court was set aside with the direction to consider the applica-tion for comparison of signatures after recording evidence of other party
Revision was accepted in circumstances.
"Comparison of signatures", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124947637
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Comparison of signatures"
1981 C L C 1083
Before Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J Versus Mst. FATIMA BAI‑‑Respondent
Court: Karachi2013 Y L R 468
Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAISALABAD and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1991 P L C 693
AMJAD ALI Versus Messrs NAGINA COTTON MILLS NO. 2
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh1992 C L C 1043
PERVAIZ AFZAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Sheikh HASSAN ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2022 M L D 296
BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus Syed ANEES AHMED and 2 others — Respondents
Court: IslamabadP L 'D 1999 Karachi 257
Rana MAMOON RASHEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KOKAB NOORANI OKARVI and 4 others ‑‑‑ Respondents
Court:2025 C L C 785
SABIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/MCAC, Layyah and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)2002 Y L R 3379
Mirza WAHEED BEG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FARID and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2017 M L D 282
MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)2019 C L D 1254
ABDUL SATTAR — Appellant Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager/Attorney and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)