In this Constitutional petition the legality of order dated 16-2-1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narowal dismissing revision petition of the petitioner against order dated 26-11-1990 passed by the learned trial Court for rejection of application filed by the petitioner for getting disputed signatures of Muhammad Afzal and thumb-impression of Riaysat Ali compared by expert witness with their specimen signatures and thumb---impressions, has been called in question.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 3 made an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside decree passed against him on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation etc. This application was contested by the petitioner decree-holder. During the pendency of the said application an application was made on 20-2-1990 by the respondent for getting the disputed signatures of Muhammad Afzal and thumb-impression of Riyasat Ali who was alleged to be special attorney of Muhammad Afzal compared with the specimen signatures and the thumb-impression of these two persons. This application was made at the stage when the said respondent had already closed his evidence excepting his own statement as his own witness. This application was rejected through order dated 26-i1-1990 against which a revision petition was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal which has been rejected through order dated 16-2-1992 both of which have been challenged in this Constitutional petition.
3. A request for adjournment has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner by his clerk. I am not inclined to adjourn the case.
4. 1 have heard learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and examined both the orders. The main application under section 12(2), C.P.C. has not yet been finally decided. In case the final order is passed against the respondent, he has remedy to challenge the same before higher forum. In case he challenges the said order, he may request the Court to get the disputed signatures and thumb- A impressions compared, which request shall be determined in accordance with ' law. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order at this stage in exercise of my discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan therefore, I would refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the request of the petitioner to get the signatures and thumb--- impressions compared. .
5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.