' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Through this application Nazir Ahmad respondent prays the recall of the compromise order, dated 18-5-1983, passed by this Court, alleging that he had not signed the compromise-deed on the basis whereof C. P. S. L. A. No, 284/81, filed by Abdul Aziz etc. (petitioners therein) against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 21-12- 1980 dismissing his first appeal, which according to the present applicant was disposed of on the basis of a compromise-deed, fraudulently filed by the opposite party, under his forged signatures.
2. The facts giving rise to the case are, briefly, that Nazir Ahmad applicant (respondent in the main petition) filed a pre-emption suit against the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge, Hafizabad. He was represented by Muhammad Arif Randhawha, Advocate. The suit was contested by Abdul Aziz etc. The case was fixed for 24-12-1978 but one day before that date, i,e, on 23-12-1978, an application was moved before the learned Civil Judge (allegedly) on behalf of Nazir Ahmad plaintiff/respondent, through another counsel namely Munir Ahmad Kharal, Advocate, praying therein that since the parties have arrived at a compromise, he be permitted to withdraw the suit.
This application carried the signature of Nazir Abmad. On receiving that application the learned Civil Judge, summoned the file of the case on the same date (23-12-1978), recorded the statement of Nazir Ahmad plaintiff/respondent wherein he admitted the factum of compromise and in pursuance thereof dismissed the suit. Nazir Ahmad was also required to append his signature to the statement.
2-A Subsequently, on 22-1-1979, Nazir Ahmad instead of moving the learned Civil Judge, filed an appeal before the District Judge stating that he had neither moved any application (under his signature) for withdrawal of the suit, nor had he appointed Munir Ahmad Kharal, Advocate, as his counsel for that purpose, and that he had not made any statement before the learned Civil Judge, Hafizabad, admitting the compromise. He alleged that the defendants (i,e, Abdul Aziz etc. Petitioners herein) had practised a fraud on him (i,e, Nazir Ahmad), as well as on the trial Court, in connivance with Munir Ahmad Kharal, Advocate.
2-B The statement of Munir Ahmad Kharal, Advocate, was recorded by the learned District Judge, wherein he deposed that he knew Nazir Abmad personally, being his neighbourer, and admitted during the cross-examination that the signatures of Nazir Ahmad on the plaint and the Vakalatnama executed by him in favour of Mr. Muhammad Arif Randhawa, Advocate, were different from those appearing on the application for withdrawal of the suit on the basis of the compromise and on the Vakalatnama executed in favour of Munir Ahmad Kharal, Advocate.
3. After considering the matter the learned District Judge held that since Nazir Ahmad had filed the suit through Muaammad Arif Randhawa, Advocate, and there was no reason for him to appoint a new counsel for filing an application for withdrawal of the suit through another counsel, the said application was, therefore, not genuine. He also relied on the fact that the signatures of Nazir Ahmad on the Vakalatnama in favour of Munir Ahmad Kharal and the application for withdrawal of the suit did not tally with his (Nazir Ahmad's) signatures taken in the Court and his other admitted signatures. He, therefore, found that Nazir Ahmad was not a party to the withdrawal of the suit and that fraud had been played by the opposite-party on him as well as on the trial Court by means of impersonation and forgery, utilizing the services of Mr. Munir Ahmad Kharal, Advocate, Nazir Ahmad's appeal was consequently accepted by the learned District Judge who set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the present petitioners (Abdul Aziz etc.) filed an F. A.
0. In the High Court, which was dismissed mainly on the ground that there was obvious difference in the signature of Nazir Ahmad on the application for withdrawal of the suit and on his (Nazir Ahmad's) admitted signature.
' Since the proceedings in the suit before the trial Court had not been stayed, it proceeded with the trial and dismissed the suit of Nazir Ahmad, whereupon he filed an appeal before the District Judge, Gujranwala, which was pending decision. But the petitioners, who were defendants in the suit before the trial Court, filed a petition (C. P. S. L. A. No, 284/81), challenging the above-noted judgments of the High Court and the District Judge, regarding alleged application for withdrawal of suit.
5. On receiving the notice of the said Petition (No, 284/81), Nazir Ahmad (respondent) entered caveat through Mr. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, A. O. R.. Who placed his power-of-attorney on the record and appeared in the Court on his (Nazir Ahmad's) behalf on 5-3-1983. A compromise-deed was also filed by his (by Mr. Mehdi Khan Mehtab) A.
0. R., duly signed by him as - also by Nazir Ahmad (respondent) and thumb-marked by Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Din petitioners. The compromise deed was also signed by Sh. Abdul Karim the A.
0. R. For the petitioners. The power-of-attorney presented by Mr. Mehdi Khan Mehtab A.
0. R. For the respondent also carried the identity card number of Nazir Ahmad.
' Subsequently, however, Nazir Ahmad respondent employed Mr. Inayat Hussain Shah as his A.
0. R. Who filed caveat, with notice to Sh. Abdul Karim, A.
0. R. For the petitioners. The case was fixed and listed for 18-5-1983 for action on the application for compromise, but the cause list did not contain the name of Mr. Inayat Hussain the new A.
0. R. For Nazir Ahmad respondent.
' The compromise was allowed by this Court vide order, dated 18-5-1983. But subsequently on 28- 6-1983, Mr. Inayat Hussain filed an application praying that the above-mentioned compromise order be set aside on the ground that it had been obtained by the opposite party through fraud and that his (Nazir Ahmad's) signature thereon was a forged one.
6. We issued notice to the parties as well as their counsel. The case came up for hearing on 30-10- 1983. We asked Nazir Ahmad to sign his name thrice on a piece of paper. We also called the original record of the suit from the trial Court to examine his signatures on the power-of-attorney and verification of the plaint and various other documents. We also examined his signatures on his identity card which was produced by him before us.
7. Nazir Ahmad respondent admitted before us that the signatures on his Identity Card were in his own hand.
' We notice that these signatures are identical with :
(1) Nazir Ahmad's signature on the compromise deed dated 23-12-1978, alleged to have been submitted before the trial Court fraudulently by Mr. Munir Abmad Kharl, Advocate, without his (Nazir Ahmad's) knowledge ; and
(2) Nazir Ahmad's signature on his statement recorded by the trial Court on the same day.
' The signatures on these two documents to tally belie the respondent (i. e. Nazir Ahmad).
8. We have also noticed that some of the signatures admitted to be those of Nazir Ahmad on various documents filed by him during the course of this litigation do not tally with the specimen signatures recorded by him in this Court. For example, his signatures :
(1) on the plaint dated 22-1-1977 at page 7 of the trial Court file).
(ii) his signature on the application for deposit of Zar-i-Panjam, dated 26-2-1977 (at p. 35 of trial Court file) ;
(iii) his signatures on the Power-or-Attorney, dated 6-4-1983 in favour of Mr. Inayat Hussain (at page 45 of the Supreme Court file) ; and
(iv) his signatures on the statement before the trial Court (at page 84 of the trial Court file).
9. It appears that the respondent has been signing some documents himself, while getting some other documents signed by different persons before different Courts. He also appears to have adopted a peculiar method for harrassing his opponents, that is, first getting the case (or appeal) dismissed on the basis of a compromise filed in the Court through a different counsel and subsequently denying the same and alleging that a fraud has been played on him by the opposite party.
10. After carefully considering the matter we feel that Nazir Ahmad respondent himself got a compromise-deed filed through Mr. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, A. O. R., but got someone else to sign the compromise-deed and the power-of-attorney in his (Mr. Mehdi Khan Mehtab's) favour but got it signed by someone else (probably his own son, who rendering of the word Nazir Ahmad is similar) so as to be able to deny it later and, in the rush of work, his attorney did not care to verify whether the signature in question were, in fact, those of Nazir Ahmad. As such we hold that there is no defect in the compromise order passed by this Court on 18-5-1983, which is valid and effective.
Consequently, Application (No, 387/83 filed by Nazir Ahmad) is dismissed as having been compromised.
11. Before parting with the case we would observe that in order to discourage such practice as has been adopted by Nazir Ahmad respondent in the present case, the Advocate-General, Punjab, should study the file and consider Nazir Ahmad's prosecution for the offences, which have prima facie been committed by him during the course of this litigation.
12. The Registration Office of National Identity Cards/Secretary Interior should also consider the desirability of prosecuting the respondent (Nazir Ahmad) for affixing someone else's signatures on the form filed by him for obtaining his Identity Card.
' Each of the above-noted officials should be sent a copy of this order, with special reference to paragraphs Nos. 11 and 12, so that they may initiate appropriate proceedings against Nazir Ahmad.