' This revision petition calls in question the order dated 13th March, 1978 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the application of the petitioner for comparison of the signatures of the defendants on various documents was rejected on the ground that it was only intended to prolong the final determination of the suit.
2. I have beard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view, that since the petitioner has specifically denied the signatures of various documents, it was in the interest of justice to allow the application. The petitioner had a right to produce a witness to prove the document, and ask for handwriting expert to compare the signatures and make a report about the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures. The trial Court has, therefore, acted in its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in refusing to summon the witness on the ground that it was intended to prolong the final determination of the suit. Had this petition been accepted by the trial Court, the case would have been finally disposed of long ago.
3. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the parties have no objection for acceptance of the application dated 9th June, 1975 made by the petitioner in which a prayer has been made for referring the matter to the handwriting expert for examination and report as to the authenticity of the signatures appearing on the file of the Civil Court and the Controlling Authority. 1 am also inclined to agree with the joint statement made by the learned counsel for the parties.{{PAGE CUTT}} with the the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 13th of the learned' Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, is set aside. C 'z that the application dated 9th June, 1975, is allowed. Is directed to produce the handwriting expert before the 1st December,' 1982 at his own responsibility ; on handwriting expert after examining the record of art in the presence of the learned trial take further. Necessary steps for comparison of the led counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the parties have already been recorded and the case is ts. If that is so, the learned trial Court is directed of this matter within one month of the recording of the statement of the handwriting expert intended to be produced by the petitioner.
' With these observations, the revision petition is accepted with no order as to costs.