Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad who accepted the application for comparison/verification of signatures and thumb impressions filed by the respondent/plaintiff and also assailed the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad who dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 2/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell along with permanent injunction contending therein that he purchased a constructed house, fully described in Paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, on the basis of an oral agreement to sell against consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 100,000/- was paid in cash, the stamp paper amounting to Rs. 447500/- was purchased for the execution of the sale deed on 03.03.2015. On 18.03.2015, the sale deed was prepared and a Cheque No. 05071652 dated 30.03.2015 of UBL Branch for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was sent to the petitioner/defendant which was received by him. On 13.04.2015, the petitioner/defendant signed the draft of the sale deed and also imposed his thumb impressions but at the date fixed for registration of sale deed, he did not appear before the Sub Registrar. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff' filed suit for specific performance of the agreement. The petitioner/defendant filed contesting written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application for comparison/verification of the signatures and thumb impressions of the petitioner/defendant on the sale deed. The petitioner/defendant objected the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad accepted the application vide impugned order dated 25.09.2017. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a civil revision which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 06.04.2018. Hence, this petition.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. The petitioner/defendant while filing the written statement impliedly denied his signatures and thumb impressions over the alleged sale deed, which has been has been brought on record [as Exh.P.4]. Thus, to check the veracity of the said document, it would be in the fitness of the things to get the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner/defendant with the one available on the said alleged sale deed and the petitioner/defendant would be last person to object the same.
Regarding the matter of obtaining the expert opinion with regard to the thumb impression, handwriting or signature of a party qua the discard of execution of a document, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Mst. Akhtar Begum vs. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2009 SCMR 264), has held as under: "7. We have minutely examined the disputed documents. In view of the emphatic denial by the petitioner of having signed the aforesaid documents. In our view, it was imperative for the Banking Court to have referred the same to handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion whether the purported signatures on documents were in the handwriting of the petitioner or were forged or manipulated by somebody else. The above very important aspect of the case not only escaped the attention of the Banking Court but the High Court also did riot take notice thereof without realizing that a person cannot be made liable or responsible to make payment which he or she would otherwise not legally be bound to pay but being pressurized or forced to pay on the ground of some forged or manipulated document Persistent, strong and vehemence denial of the petitioner of her signature on the mortgage deed, power of attorney, etc. led us to make a comparison of her denied signatures with her admitted signatures and the comparison was made with the naked eye but the results were not very encouraging and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case warranted such comparison by a handwriting expert for conclusively hold that the disputed documents bear the signature of the petitioner."
(emphasis supplied)
In a case reported as Syed Sharif-ul-Hassan through L.Rs vs. Hafiz Muhammad Amin and others (2012 SCMR 1258) the Hon'ble Apex Court after setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees of the High Court and that of the learned District Judge, remanded the case back to the latter for decision afresh in the light of the opinion of the Finger Prints Expert, as to the genuineness or otherwise of the thumb impressions or signatures of the executant of the instrument. Reliance can also be placed on the case titled as Muhammad Anwar vs. Muhammad Yousaf and others (2010 MLD 1745).
5. Furthermore, the record of the learned trial Court was requisitioned by this Court, perusal whereof shows the bad conduct of the petitioner in pursuing the case as he off and on remained absent in the proceedings of the lis without any justiciable cause. The respondent/plaintiff has got recorded his evidence and now the case is fixed for 12.02.2022.
6. Even otherwise the order impugned in this petition has been passed by learned revisional Court whereas it is settled law that this Court in constitutional jurisdiction ordinarily avoids to interfere with such order unless the said order is found to be patently illegal or passed without jurisdiction.
Reliance is placed on a case cited as Muhammad Khan and 6 others vs. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others (1991 SCMR 970), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: "The learned High Court observed that a revisional order arising out of civil litigation could not be challenged in the Writ Petition and relied upon Ghulam Hussain v. Malik Shahbaz Khan 1985 SCMR 1925; Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ghulam Hussain 1989 SCMR 443 and Muhammad Zahoor v. Lai Muhammad 1988 SCMR 322."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of facts are against the petitioner which are not called for any interference by this Court in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction.
Reliance is placed on the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. Judge, Family Court and 7 Others (2007 MLD 1710).
8. Resultantly, this writ, petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, the learned trial Court, seized of the matter, is directed to decide the main lis between the parties as early as possible preferably within four months.