' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.---This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 9-6-1984.
2. Facts in brief are that the appellants along with respondents 11 to 13 had purchased agricultural land measuring 106 kanals 1 marla situate at Muraday Khurd and Pir Kot, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura as per registered sale deed dated 10-2-1973 for a consideration of Rs,62,500. On 4-12- 1974 Taleh Mand the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 10 filed a suit for possession through pre-emption claiming superior right of pre-emption being the real brother of the vendor as well as co-sharer in the Khata. The sale price was also disputed. Respondents 11 to 13 filed Iqbal Dawa whereas the suit was contested by the appellants, as a result of which a number of issues were struck.
3. On 4-7-1974 the case was fixed for the evidence of the parties when Muhammad Ilyas son of Teleh Mand predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 10 posed himself as Taleh Mand and got his statement recorded as plaintiff in the case. Soon after, this was noticed by the appellants, who further learnt that even the plaint, Vakalatnama and other documents did not bear the thumb- impressions of Taleh Mand plaintiff. On 12-9-1974 when the case came up for further proceedings the appellants brought the above facts to the notice of the learned trial Court which was not disputed by the counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents and instead made a statement that the statement of Muhammad Ilyas P.W.1 be cancelled because this statement was not made by Taleh Mand plaintiff but was made by his son -- his attorney, by mistake. On the same day the learned trial Court cancelled the statement of P.W.1 because the same was given by Muhammad Ilyas by mistake.
4. The appellants then moved an application for amendment in their written statement under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. On the ground that the plaintiff/respondent had not filed the suit himself but it had been filed by his son Muhammad Ilyas fictitiously on his father's behalf and that the thumb- impressions of other persons had been obtained on the plaint as well as on the Vakalatnama and other documents. It was further averred in the application that Muhammad Ilyas had impersonated himself as Taleh Mand while making the statement and further that legally no suit had been filed. The application was resisted by Taleh Mand and his stand was that the plaint and other documents had been thumb-impressed by him and that the suit had been filed at his instance and that it was wrong that the thumb impressions were fictitious. This application was, however, allowed, amended written statements filed and the following 2 additional issues were framed:- "7-A. Whether the plaint does not bear the thumb-impression of the plaintiff, if so, its effect?
7-B. Whether the plaintiff has not filed this suit?
5. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties including that of Nasim Hussain Zaidi, Inspector Finger Print Expert who appeared as P.W.5 and Mr. Zake'A. Malik, Handwriting Expert who appeared as D.W.1, on issue No,7-A observed:- "From the above evidence on record, it is proved that the thumb-impressions on the Wakalatnama Exh. D.1, on the plaint Exh.D.2 and on the court-fee stamp Exh.D.4 are not of Taleh Mand plaintiff, but they are of some other person and have been forged by Muhammad Tufail, Clerk of Ch. Muhammad Islam Advocate, I, therefore, hold that the plaint does not bear the thumb-impression of the plaintiff and decide the issue accordingly in the affirmative against the plaintiff." and on issue No,7-B while agreeing with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the plaint had not been properly signed or verified in accordance with the provisions of Order VI, Rules 14 and 15, C.P.C. It was not a proper planet and which could not be rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 20-2-1976. Thereafter, the respondents filed an appeal from the above judgment and decree in the Court of Additional District Judge Sheikhupura. The first Appellate Court while confirming the findings of the learned trial Court on issues 7-A and 7-B, dismissed the appeal on 7-10-1979 in the following terms:- "The very first thing, required from the appellant in this case was that he should come to the Court with clean hands. The appellant had been insisting on his claim that he had affixed his thumb- impressions on the plaint, Vakalatnama and the court-fee stamps. This contention of the appellant was falsified on the record. He was, therefore, not entitled to say that the affixation of the thumb- impressions by some other persons on the relevant documents was a mere irrgularity and the same be allowed to be cured at the appellate stage. As the plaint and Vakalatnama were not duly thumb-marked by the appellant and some other person affixed his thumb-impression on the same, therefore, there is no difficulty to conclude that no suit was filed by the appellant. I, therefore, have come to the conclusion that the irregularity or the forgery, whatsoever it may be called cannot be rectified and the conduct of the appellant, throughout the long litigation is detrimental to his claim that any discretion may be exercised in his favour. The stand of the appellant had all along been, during the pendency of the suit, that he thumb-marked the plaint and Vakalatnama. It was found to be false and wrong in view of the statement of Zaka A. Malik. The plaint and the Vakalatnama in the present case were not duly thumb-marked by the appellant, therefore, the presumption under Order 6, rules 14 and 15 would be that the plaint was not properly presented in the Court, hence there was no suit instituted on behalf of the appellant. The plaintiff/appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Order IV rule 1 which requires that the plaint must be signed/thumb-marked or verified under Order VI, rules 14 and 15."
' The respondents then approached the High Court through a Regular Second Appeal. The learned Single Judge who was seized of the matter found the non-signing of the plaint, Vakalatnama etc. As a curable irregularity and allowed the same as per the impugned judgment, and the case remanded to the trial Court with the direction to allow the respondents to put their signatures/ thumb-impressions on the plaint, Vakalatnama and redecide the suit after recording evidence on issues 7 and 7-A.
6. Leave in this case was granted to examine whether in the facts and A circumstances of the case the respondents had shown good cause for permission to sign the plaint.
7. Arguments heard and the record perused. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Judge in his chambers has legally erred in permitting the respondents to sign and verify the plaint when there is overwhelming evidence on the record that the respondents were guilty of making false assertions as to the signing and verifying the plaint and Vakalatnama and other documents; that the High Court has acted illegally in treating the respondents who were guilty of forgery, false representation and contumacy at par with those who for sufficient cause failed to comply with the provision of Order VI, rules 14 and 15, C.P.C.; and further that the High Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent finding of the facts of the Courts below, moreso, when no misreading or ignoring the evidence on the record had been noted or highlighted. He lastly submitted that since in this case no decree for pre-emption was passed by the 31st July, 1986, no decree can now be passed in favour of the respondents. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the case of Muhammad Riaz Khan v. Sardar Rahim Dad and 12 others PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 13; Government of N.- W.F.P. Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360; Sher Muhammad and another v. Allah Ditta and 2 others PLD 1988 SC 412 and Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din PLD 1988 SC 701.
8. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that non-signing of the plaint and the Vakalatnama is only a procedural irregularity and not an illegality and the same can be cured under Order VI, Rule 14, C.P.C. Reliance in this respect was placed by him on the case of Ismail and another v. Mst. Razia Begum and 3 others (1981 SCM R 687) and Ghulam Mohiyuddin v. Noor Dad and others PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K)
42. As for the objection about the non-passage of pre-emption decree before 31-7-1986 the learned counsel relying on section 36 of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance IX of 1991 submitted that since it is pending, the case can be now re-adjudicated upon and decided accordingly.
9. In the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we have reconsidered the findings of the Courts below and that of the learned Single Judge. The threadbare analysis of the evidence of the parties made by the Courts below was that the thumb-impressions on the plaint, Vakalatnama and other documents were not that of Taleh Mand but were forged and further that no plaint as required under Order IV, Rule 1, C.P.C. Had been filed in the Court. The learned Single Judge in his chambers &I not write a word in disagreeing with the analysis made by the Courts below, he simply found that the non-signing of the plaint, Vakalatnama etc. Etc. Was an irregularity and curable under Order VI, Rule 14, C.P.C. And allowed the appeal. The conclusion of the learned Judge in his chambers in view of the concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts which are based on correct appraisal of evidence, with respect, is far from being correct and is, therefore, not sustainable. The perusal of record has made it manifestly clear that this case from the very beginning was based on mala fide and bad faith. It is an admitted fact that on the first day of recording the evidence it was found out that one of the sons of Taleh Mand namely Muhammad Ilyas was guilty of impersonating his father Taleh Mand. Then during the course of proceedings it was detected and established that the plaint, Vakalatnama etc. Were forged for reasons best known to Taleh Mand respondent. It needs no B emphasis that law and the Courts of law assist only those litigants whose claim and approach to the Courts are based on honesty and good faith. And when these things are lacking, relief is denied to them. Under Order VI, Rule 14, C.P.C. Every pleading shall be signed by the party and its pleader (if any). A cone scion under its proviso that the pleadings may be signed by any person duly authorised by the party to sign, is allowed only to that party who could not sign the plaint etc. Because of his bona fide absence or other good cause such as an oversight or inadvertence. Once it is established that the non-signing of the pleadings is based on mala fide, bad faith or for the matter of that the signature or thumb- C impression of a party 4 forged on the pleadings, the concession so provided is denied to him and it takes the party beyond the pale of Order VI, Rule 14, C.P.C. In the instant case it has been established that the plaint and other relevant documents were not thumb-impressed by Taleh Mand plaintiff but his thumb- impressions on these d9cuments were forged. Obviously, therefore, a party with forged pleadings and exhibiting bad faith cannot be considered at par with a party whose case is covered under Order VI, Rule 14, C.P.C. Support in this regard was rightly sought by the learned counsel for the appellants from the judgment of the Supreme Court (Azad J4K) in the case of Muhammad Riaz Khan v. Rahim Dad and 12 others PLD 1 0 SC(AJ&K) 13 wherein the learned Judges dissenting from the judgment in he case of Muhammad Bibi and others v. Nawaz and others 1986 M LD 771 held:-- "We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to the view taken by the learned Judge. It hardly needs any arguments that forging signature or thumb-impression on power-of-attorney or `Vakalatnama' is an act of forgery within the meaning of section 463 of the A.P.C. And is a penal offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that omission to sign a power of attorney or `Vakalatnama' practically stands on the same footings, as forging the said documents. The Courts of law have always been reluctant to show indulgence in case of an illegal act; specially so if such an act constitutes a criminal liability.
It is not only a legal obligation but also a moral duty of the Courts to discourage the acts of fraud, forgery and personification even if the same do not constitute a criminal liability."
Further in this case question of ratification too, does not arise because an illegal act cannot be ratified under the law.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since in this case no decree was passed before 31-7-1986, therefore no decree can be passed now and which has been rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents on the strength of section 36 of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance 9 of 1991 need not be dilated upon because this appeal is being decided on an altogether different ground.
' As a result of the above, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout.