' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are to the effect that Shehzad Ahmad plaintiff-respondent herein had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.65,286 under Order XXXVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. On the basis of promissory note dated 30-9-2003 against the petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Faisalabad. The suit was contested by the defendant/ petitioner herein, who filed his written statement. The evidence of the parties had been recorded by the learned trial Court and before announcing of the final judgment, the petitioner had filed an application for referring his signature appearing on Exh.P.1 and Exh.P1/2 two different pro notes allegedly executed by the petitioner Shaukat Ali in favour of defendant/plaintiff and his brother Kabir Ahmad. The learned trial Court vide order dated 22-3-2005 dismissed the application observing that the court is itself competent to form an opinion about the questioned documents.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The evidence of the parties had been recorded. Shaukat Ali defendant has appeared as D.W.1 in the trial Court. He has admitted his signatures on blank papers and also stated that the plaintiff had promised to return the same. In his cross-examination, he also admitted his signature and thumb-marks on black papers. He specifically stated that he made signature on two papers. He further admitted Exh.P-1/1 stating that it was got executed from him as guarantee. D.W.2 also admitted the signatures and thumb-marks of the defendant on these papers. Relevant portion of statement of D.W.2 is reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} the defendant himself and his witness had admitted the signatures on the pro note. After recording the evidence of the parties, the plaintiff has applied to the ' Court for comparison of his signatures and it is settled preposition of law that once the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the basis of very evidence produced by him, he could not given benefit of the only favourable opinion by the Expert, being other a weak piece of evidence. Reliance has been placed to the case of Syed Muhammad Umer Shah v. Bashir Ahmed (2004 SCM R 1859).
There is no illegality in the observation of the learned trial Court. The trial Court is competent to compare the signature or handwriting of a disputed document with the admitted writing. Reliance in this context can be placed to the case of Sirbaland v. Allah Loke and others (1996 SCM R 575). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-- "In my view, there is no legal prohibition that a trial Court cannot compare handwriting of a disputed document with the admitted writing and cannot take a contrary view to the opinion of the Handwriting Expert.
' This observation was based by the Honorable Supreme Court on the cases titled of Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani v. Z.A. Suleri and another (PLD 1958 (W.P) Lahore 747 and Syed Shabbir Hussain v.
The State (1968 SCM R 1126). In another case titled Ghulam Siddique v. Mst. Ajaib and others (2002 CLC 1244), it has been held by a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court that the Court can also compare the disputed signature or writing with some admitted signatures or writing. Even if the opinion of a Handwriting Expert is obtained with regard to the signature or thumb-impression on some document which is in dispute, it is settled preposition of law that it would be a weak piece of evidence and that opinion of the Handwriting Expert even otherwise is a weak piece of evidence should not be allowed to prevail against strong circumstances and strong evidence. There is sufficient evidence and admitted facts to infer that the petitioner had made the signatures and made thumb marks on some documents before handing over the same to the respondent. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court has correctly/rightly/legally passed the impugned order observing that the Court itself is competent to form an opinion about the questioned documents.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed.