PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J. --- A suit under Order 37, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C., for the recovery of Rs. 1,17,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 17.3.1998 was filed by Mehmood Akbar- respondent/plaintiff against petitioner Azhar Iqbal. Upon service of summons, the petitioner/defendant applied for leave to defend which was duly granted to him and he also filed a written statement, maintaining that the disputed amount was never borrowed by him from the plaintiff rather he had been defrauded by the respondent/plaintiff. As many a nine issues were framed and in support of their respective contentions, the parties red their evidence. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.2.2001 which has been assailed through this Regular First Appeal.
2. This R.F.A. Was admitted to regular hearing on 21.3.2001 but could not be decided for one reason or the other. In arguments of learned counsel for the parties advanced at quite some length, the main emphasis by Mr. Asmatullah Khan Niazi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner has throughout been upon the submission that in view of categorical denial of the petitioner/defendant qua his signatures and thumb-impression upon the alleged promissory note and receipt, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to have sent the specimen signatures and thumb-impression of the petitioner of the handwriting expert for its comparison with those on the disputed pronote and the receipt.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent with vehemence submitted that in view of sufficient eyidence being available on the record that was no need to undertaken the exercise referred to above.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and minute examination of the record, 1 am of the considered view that in view of categorical denial of the petitioner/defendant, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Judge to send the specimen signatures of the petitioner/defendant to the handwriting expert for their comparison with those allegedly put 'by him on the pronote and the receipt. I may observe here that in such like cases including those of fraud and forgery where the documents are denied to have been executed by one of the parties, the best piece of evidence is the report of handwriting expert. In absence whereof proper adjudication of the /is to my mind would, not be possible. This being a material irregularity which shakes the very foundation of the impugned judgment and decree. Resultantly the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court, with the following observations:---
(i) The learned Trial Court shall without loss of time send the specimen signatures and thumb- impressions to the handwriting expert for its comparison with those on the pronote and the receipt, subject-matter of the suit and shall rewrite the judgment on the basis of that report alone.
(ii) No further evidence shall be recorded.
(i.e) The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge/Trial Court on 27.5,2009.
5. The needful shall be done by the learned District Judge expeditiously and without any loss of time. It is hereby clarified that no notice shall be required to be issued to the parties and if any of them abstains, the learned District Judge may pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
6. With these observations this petition stands disposed of. .