' This Constitutional petition is directed against order dated 7-7-1993 of the Additional District Judge, Gujrat whereby he disallowed the request of petitioner for transmitting thumb-impression of respondent on the disputed Nikahnama to the handwriting expert. Only specimen signatures of respondent were sent to compare with the signatures on the Nikahnama.
2. Briefly stated, respondent No,1, Kishwar Sultana, filed a suit for jactitation of marriage on 1-10-1990 against petitioner and out of the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:---
(1) Whether plaintiff is a legally-wedded wife of the defendant? OPD
(2) Whether defendant is entitled to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights? OPD
(3) Whether plaintiff is estopped by her words and conduct to bring the suit? OPD
(4) Whether plaintiff lacks locus standi and cause of action? OPD
(5) Whether this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
(6) Relief.
3. Admittedly by the learned counsel for petitioner, evidence of the parties was closed on 8-9-1992.
Thereafter on 6-12-1992, petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for obtaining specimen signatures and also thumb-impression of respondent to be compared with those on the disputed Nikahnama. This application was rejected on 31-1-1993 by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Gujrat. Petitioner also moved an application for additional evidence that certain letters issued by respondent may be taken into consideration and this too was rejected on 31-1-1993. While disallowing two prayers of petitioner, learned Family Judge observed that two suits were pending one for restitution of conjugal rights and the other for dissolution of marriage on the ground of jactitation and in case signature/thumb-impressions were sent to the expert, it would further delay the disposal of the suits.
4. Thereafter petitioner filed revision petition which was rejected and order dated 31-1-1993 of the lower Court was maintained. While dismissing the revision petition, learned revisional Court observed that "the revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine with the observation that the learned trial Court in the interest of justice obtain the signatures of the respondent and compare it itself with the signatures on the admitted documents produced by the respondent".
5. Keeping in view the aforementioned observation, learned trial Court, instead of comparing the signatures of respondent itself, transmitted the same to the handwriting expert. Petitioner did not file any appeal or revision petition against this action but moved learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat by means of an application that the lower Court was bound to obtain also the thumb- impression alongwith signatures of respondent for report of handwriting expert and this application was rejected by order, dated 7-7-1993 holding that "the observation made by this Court was only for the guidance of the learned trial Court and it was only observed in the interest of justice that trial Court can obtain the signature of the respondent for its own comparison. The observations made by the Court are only in the nature of obiter and are not binding on the Court".
It is further held that application in the nature of revision petition was not maintainable whereby it was requested that thumb-impression of respondent should also be obtained.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and am of the view that after evidence is dosed, the petitioner is abusing the process of the Court to delay the disposal of suits which should not have taken long time to decide being family matters. Apart from this, application of petitioner was moved after evidence was closed and the same was rejected on 31-1-1993 against which revision petition filed and same dismissed on 11-2-1993 by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat and while dismissing this revision, he observed that learned trial Court may compare the signatures itself. But instead of doing so, learned trial Court obtained the signatures of respondent and transmitted the same for comparison. In fact these were not the observations. The procedure adopted by the trial Court is disapproved because almost three years have elapsed and family suits have not so far been disposed of. The observations were made in the order dated 11-2-1993 of the Additional District Judge and this order was not challenged in proper forum which became fmal for all intents and purposes. Thereafter there was no ground for petitioner to have misused the observations by adding that thumb-impression should also be obtained.
7. Admittedly, the suit of respondent is for jactitation of marriage and even if it is proved that signatures or thumb-impression are her, still the Court can go into the question of fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore, exercise of lower Court in transmitting the specimen signatures is of no legal significance; particularly when the prayer of petitioner for obtaining specimen signatures and thumb-impression was already rejected.
' For the reasons stated above, I do not find any force in this petition which is dismissed in limine.
Learned trial Court, Gujrat is directed to dispose of both the suits within two months from the date of receipt of this order.