' Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that private respondents filed a suit against the petitioner for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.11.2002. In response to summons the petitioner entered appearance before the learned trial Court and contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement the petitioner denied the execution of the alleged agreement to sell dated 28.11.2012. On divergent pleadings the learned trial Court framed issues and called upon the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their claims. During trial the petitioner filed an application for comparison of her thumb impression with the thumb-impression affixed on the alleged agreement to sell dated 28.11.2012 from the finger print expert. This application was contested by the private respondents. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 2.7.2009. The above said order was assailed through a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur. The said revision was dismissed vide order dated 10.8.2009. Hence, this petition.
2. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that both the learned Courts below have dismissed her application for comparison of thumb-impression without expressing any cogent reason. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No, 2-d (Muhammad Yousaf) has opposed this petition and submitted that the petition is not maintainable. The other respondents are not in attendance. Since this is an old case and proceedings before the learned trial Court are stayed, I am not inclined to adjourn this case to procure presence of other private respondents who are hereby proceeded against ex-parte.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find substance in the arguments canvassed by the petitioner's counsel. Both the learned Courts below have rejected the petitioner's application for comparison of her thumb-impression with the thumb-impression affixed on the alleged agreement to sell dated 28.11.2002 and register of petition writer on the ground that same had been moved at the stage of final arguments to prolong the case. The reason prevailed upon learned Courts below to dismissed the petitioner's above said application is not valid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently held that lis involving a disputed question is decided, it has to be decided on proper appraisal of evidence and that if a lis involving appreciation or interpretation of law is decided, it has to be decided in accordance with the well-recognized principles laid down by the superior Courts from time to time. Justice at no cost and at no stage be allowed to fall prey to the procedural technicalities. They be ignored if they tend to create hurdle in the way of justice. For law can survive as a living force only, when it dynamically assimilates and adapts to the changes around to further the cause of justice. This is how the law grows and .This how the jurisprudence advances. [See Syed Sharif-ul-Hassan through L.Rs, v Hafiz Muhammad Amin and others (201 SCMR. 1258)]. In view of above stated principle of law delay alone could not be made basis for dismissal of the application for comparison of thumb impression. The learned trial Court was required to decide the application filed by the petitioner with cogent reasons, thus, the orders, which have been impugned in this petition, being bereft of any reason are not valid. As regards the objection qua the maintainability of this petition, it is suffice to say that order which does not contain reason is always termed as perverse order and against such type of order constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is competent.
4. In the sequel, without touching merits of the case I am inclined to accept this petition. The order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur, and order dated 2.7.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge 2nd Class, Rajanpur are hereby set aside and declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect; and, resultantly the petitioner's application for comparison of thumb-impression shall be deemed to be pending before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the petitioner's application for comparison of thumb-impression afresh and strictly in accordance with law.
Petition accepted.