1. This revision application has been filed challenging the order of the Additional D1strict Judge, Karachi whereby Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the Civil Judge was allowed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the applicant claimed to be a tenant in possession of a shop in Eidgah Cloth Market of which one Abdul Rehman's is the landlord. The applicant had allowed the respondent No. I as a licencee for running the business. After the expiry of licence period the respondent refused to vacate the premises whereupon a suit for possession was filed which was ultimately decreed. When the applicant filed execution applica--tion, the respondent filed objections under section 47, C. P. C. Alleging that after the suit was decreed the parties compromised the matter whereupon the respondent has paid Rs.25,000 to the applicant for change of tenancy who allowed the landlord to change the tenancy receipt in favour of the respondent and therefore it was pleaded that the decree is not executable. The respondent relied upon the receipt for Rs.25,000 alleged to have been signed by the applicant and a receipt from the landlord acknowledging receipt of rent from the respondent. The applicant denied the allegation of compromise and stated that there was no compromise nor he had executed any agreement nor the landlord had issued any receipt. According to the applicant all these documents were false. On 11-5-1976 the respondent filed an application for referring the disputed documents to hand writing expert but it was not pressed. Abdul Rehman's the landlord was examined on behalf of the respondent and he denied the execution of the receipt accepting the rent and changing the tenancy in the name of the respondent. After this statement he was neither declared hostile nor he was cross-examined by the respondent. After the respondent closed his side on 6-11-1976 he pressed his application for referring the disputed documents to a hand writing expert but the same was dismissed on 11-1-1977. The respondent filed revision against that order which was also dismissed on 11-12-1977. The executing Court then passed the final order on 30th March, 1978 dismissing the objections filed by the respondent and ordered for the execution of the decree.
3. A civil Miscellaneous Appeal was led by the respondent which was allowed by the Additional D1strict Judge on' 2-4-1980 and while setting aside the order dated 30th March, 1978 he remanded the case to the learned Civil Judge for sending the disputed signature alongwith admitted signature of the respondent No. 2 and landlord to hand writing expert and thereafter to decide the case on merits. This order of the learned Additional D1strict Judge has been challenged in this revision.
4. Mr. Fazal Bhoy the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the impugned order is in excess of jurisdiction as the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion properly and legally. The question of referring the document to a hand writing expert had been decided not only by the executing Court but also by the Revisional Court and the same order could not be set aside or revised by the Additional D1strict Judge. However Mr. Faizanul Haq the learned counsel for th: respondent has contended that the discretion was improperly exercised by the learned civil Judge and no effort was made by him to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature of the appellant/landlord. Section 73, of the Act provides procedure to compare the signature for ascertaining the genuineness but such a procedure is risky and cannot be treated as a conclusive proof.
5. Mr. Faizanul Haq the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that after the impugned order was passed the learned trial Court passed an order on 20th July, 1980 for sending the disputed documents to the hand writing expert which were actually forwarded and the hand writing expert asked for the signature of the appellant made prior to the year 1975. The respondent thereupon filed an application on 8-9-1980 before the learned civil Judge praying that the agreement dated 1-11-1968 which bears the signatures of the parties may be sent to the hand writing expert. This application was granted with the consent of the applicant who endorsed their no objection. Accordingly the agreement alongwith the disputed documents was forwarded to the band writing expert who has submitted his opinion in Court on 15-10-1980.
6. It seems that during the pendency of this revision petition the impugned order has . Not only been complied with but the applicant has even consented and allowed the respondent to file an additional document which was forwarded to-the hand writing expert for his opinion. The applicants have consented and acted upon the order and even taken steps in furtherance with the impugned order to the extent that a fresh document was allowed to be A filed and sent to the hand writing expert who has by now submitted his opinion. In view of these facts as the parties seem to have accepted the impugned order and the applicant has acquiesced in it, this Revision petition has become infructuous. It will however be open to the applicant it challenge the opinion of the hand writing expert before the trial Court. In the circumstances the revision application is dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.