1. ' In this revision concurrent findings of facts given by the Courts below have been challenged. The respondent who is owner of the property in dispute filed a suit for declaration that the sale agreement introduced by the applicant in earlier rent proceeding between the parties hereto, was a forged document. The trial Court reached the conclusion that the document was a forged one because of the contradiction in evidence of the applicant on the points of execution of agreement and payment of consideration. The appellate Court also referred le the evidence of the applicant that having noticed the contradiction found it unbelievable and worthy of no credence and dismissed the appeal.
2. ' Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh the learned Advocate for the applicant has made the following submissions:-
(1) Burden of proof of the allegation that the agreement of sale was forged one lay on the shoulders of the respondent which he has failed to discharge.
(2) The Court should have sent the document to handwriting expert before reaching the conclusion that it was forged document. He has placed reliance on the case of Zainab Bibi v. Bilqis Bibi PLD 1981 SC 56 for the above submission.
(3) The judgment is based on the personal opinion of the Judge about the innocence of the respondent which fact reflects the prejudice on the part of the trial Judge. The reliance is placed on PLD 1987 Kar. 409 Muhammad Islam v. Abdul Latif.
(4) The respondent had not denied receipt of consideration in the plaint or in the evidence.
3. ' So far as his first submission is concerned, it may be observed that the plaintiff/respondent had pleaded and also deposed in evidence that the document relied upon by the applicant was a forged document. In view of the above stand of the respondent who had denied the signature on the document, the burden of proof shifted to the applicant/respondent to prove positively that the document was in fact executed by the respondent. The Courts below have concurrently on appraisal of the evidence reached the conclusion that the sale agreement was not executed by the respondent and was a forged document. I have gone through the evidence and find that no exception can be taken to the conclusion drawn by the Courts below.
4. ' The second contention is also devoid of any force. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel does not in any manner support his contention. It was a case where authenticity of Baptism Certificate was under consideration. The Court reached the conclusion that the Church Register in which Baptism was recorded ought to have been summoned to prove the authenticity of the certificate or at least referred the signature on the certificate to the hand writing expert. In the instant case both the Courts below, for valid reasons have disbelieved the evidence of the applicant, two attestation witnesses of the document and his father with regard to execution of sale agreement by the respondent and so also payment of sale consideration to the respondent, therefore, there was no need to send the document for the opinion of handwriting expert.
5. ' With regard to third submission of the learned counsel it may suffice to point out that the learned trial Judge has given her opinion with regard to the innocence of the respondent but that is not the sole reason for disbelieving the evidence of the applicant. The next sentence the trial Court has observed that on denial of execution of agreement by the respondent the burden of proof shifted to the applicant to prove that the respondent had sold the property to him and executed the agreement. It was also observed by the trial Court that the respondent was not even confronted with the sale agreement while he was in the witness-box and thereafter having considered the evidence on record reached the conclusion that the document was a forged one. The learned counsel in support of his submission has relied on the case of Muhammad Islam (supra). This was the case where the High Court noted that the learned Judge had relied upon his personal knowledge and had introduced such personal knowledge in the judgment. In this case the trial Court has not relied on any personal knowledge but has expressed opinion about the innocence of the respondent who was examined in the case but the judgment given by the trial Court is not based on such opinion.
6. ' The last contention to the effect that the respondent has not denied the receipt of the sale consideration is also without any substance. The respondent/plaintiff had, in fact disowned the agreement itself by terming it as a forged document and stating that he had not executed any sale agreement.
7. ' The applicant in his evidence with regard to the purchase of shop in dispute deposed, 'I was tenant at the suit shop previously. Later I purchased the same for Rs,18,000. He then produced the agreement, but did not go even so far as to depose that it was signed or executed by the respondent, least to say of execution of the said document in presence of witnesses or the names of witnesses or the place of execution. The applicant did not depose that he had paid sale consideration to the respondent. P.W.2 the father of the applicant deposed that he paid the sale consideration to the respondent but the also-called attestation witness Muhammad Hanif deposed that it was paid by the applicant to the respondent. Both the Courts below have thoroughly considered the evidence on record and no exception can be taken to findings arrived at.
8. ' The revision application is therefore dismissed in Limine.