' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21-11-2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Peshawar, whereby application filed by the petitioner for sending signature of the petitioner along with copies of the ledger book and other documents to FSL for the purpose of authentication and expert opinion.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 45,50,000 against the respondent along with interest, fully described in the heading of the plaint. The suit was contested by the respondent and after framing of issues petitioner concluded his evidence, whereafter the case was fixed for evidence of respondent/defendant. Before recording of the statement of respondent, the petitioner preferred application for sending certain documents to FSL for expert opinion which was contested by the respondent and through impugned order dated 21-11-2013, this application was dismissed, hence the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that certain documents were annexed by the respondent with his written statement which were denied by the petitioner as being forged and factitious; therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court that there should have been an expert opinion of handwriting expert with regard to veracity of these documents. He further contended that the impugned order is self contradictory and some observations made therein, can damaged even the respondent.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The best evidence to prove the authenticity of the signature would have been that of the handwriting expert who has to examine signature of the petitioner on the disputed documents with his signature on the admitted documents or with his signature taken before the Court. Reliance can be placed on the case of Fazal Muhammad and another v. Mst. Aiyshan and 9 others, 1984 CLC 3401. The matter is still in progress and the evidence of respondent is yet to be recorded. The learned lower Court erred in holding that the documents in question benefits the defendant/respondent, therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner is not required under the law to prove the same. These observations are against the requirement of law as this is a pre-mature stage and no observation can be made regarding any document without recording of evidence in that respect.
This view of the learned trial Court is damaging even for the respondent. It is well settled by now that a Court of law is competent to compare disputed signature with the admitted signature of any party to ascertain its genuineness, but, the same is very risky and if attempted, it must be adopted with caution and sparingly. Since proper mode is provided under the law for referring the admitted signature with disputed signature of the executant to handwriting expert, it would be safe to entrust this duty to handwriting expert to give his opinion through scientific modes.
6. In view of what has been observed above, this petition is allowed and the order dated 21-11-2013 passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside with direction to the learned trial Court to consider the application of the petitioner after recording the evidence of other party.