' This Constitutional petition is directed against an interim order passed by the Civil Judge, Gujranwala, on 14th of February, 1990 passed during the pendency of a suit, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 3, for possession of a house situate in' Gujranwala against the petitioners. By virtue of the impugned order, the Civil Court had allowed an application filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 for having the disputed signatures on document Exh.D-2 compared with the admitted signatures on Exh.D-1. This order was affirmed in revision by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 31st of July, 1990.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition has contended that the impugned orders are perverse and arbitrary in nature and as the application was filed after the closure of the evidence by respondents, it could not have been allowed by the Courts below. The learned counsel relying upon Saeed Ahmad v. Muhammad Anwar 1989 MLD 4119, Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others PLD 1980 Lah. 495 and Syed Shabbir Hussain v. The State 1968 SCMR 1126 has contended that as no list of witnesses was filed by the respondents the application could not have been allowed by the trial Court.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that although evidence in affirmative had been closed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 but their evidence in rebuttal was yet to be recorded and, therefore, the Courts below were justified in allowing the application
4. The main dispute in the suit between the parties is with regard to the signature on the affidavit (Exh.D-2) produced in evidence by- the petitioners. The trial Court has opined that the comparison of signature by the Expert would certainly be helpful in arriving at a just conclusion. The Additional District Judge found no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 that the evidence of the plaintiffs/respondents in rebuttal is yet to be recorded. The comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signature on Exh.D-1 of the deceased, Syed Israr Hussain, would be helpful in deciding the suit. In these circumstances, the orders passed by the learned Courts below are just and fair and call for no interference in the exercise of discretion vested in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
' For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.