' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 22-6-1994 whereby the revision petition filed by him was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that on 16-2-1993 the petitioner moved an application under section 151, P.P.C., before the learned trial Court praying therein that the signatures of defendant No,1 were obtained by the Court to be sent to the handwriting expert, but the defendant/respondent No,1 put up his signatures all in very slow motion and medium motive, therefore, these signatures would not meet the requirement of law and the ends of justice. It was further stated that there were quite number of documents containing genuine signatures of respondent No,1 in a judicial file of the case titled Sufi Allah Ditta v. General Public decided by Mr. Karamat Hussain, Civil Judge, Rawalpindi on 16-1-1979, therefore, the said file be summoned and the documents containing his signatures therein be sent to the handwriting expert alongwith the signatures obtained in slow motion on 28- 1-1993. The application was resisted by the respondents by denying the allegations made therein, and also on the ground that it would unduly prolong the proceedings and that respondent No,1 had come from England for the purpose of providing specimen signatures. The learned trial Court vide order dated 8-3-1993 accepted the application to the extent that Exh.D2, the original power of attorney executed by Sufi Allah Ditta for comparison with the signatures made on the disputed agreement to sell, and did not summon the judicial file. The petitioner challenged the order dated 8-3-1993 by way of revision in the High Court in so far as it directed comparison of the disputed signatures, which was dismissed by the leaned Judge in Chamber vide order dated 22-6-1994.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as the trial Court accepted the application moved by the petitioner for requisitioning the judicial file in question, the disputed deed of power of attorney allegedly executed by respondent No,1 should not have been sent to the handwriting expert. In the alternate, it was submitted that the trial Court having accepted the application of the petitioner, acted will material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in denying the prayer for requisitioning of the judicial record. The contention is devoid of any force.
The learned trial Court, while accepting the application of the petitioner specifically observed in its order dated 8-3-1993 in the following terms:-- "Apart from the objection raised by the petitioner the Court has received a Letter No,483-FSL dated 2-3-1993 from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore on the subject wherein it has been demanded that the document containing the signatures made by the respondent in routine work may be sent for comparison, therefore, to come at proper and just conclusion by the expert it would be proper that the signatures of the respondent made on agreement to sell, already sent to the expert, may be compared with the signatures made on Exh.D.2 power of attorney executed by the respondent dated 2-12-1983, which is also comparatively falling in the nearest period of the execution of the disputed document, therefore, a Robkar may be issued to the handwriting expert with reference to his letter mentioned above alongwith Exh.D.2, the original power of attorney executed, by Sufi Allah Ditta, for comparison with the signatures made on questioned agreement to sell."
4. The learned Judge in Chamber, after careful perusal of the material available on record, took the view that the learned trial Court in exercise of his discretion has sent the document Exh.D-2 which is a proved document on the record whereon the respondent No,1 has admitted his signatures for the purposes of comparison by the handwriting expert by way of supplement to the signatures already sent to him". It was further observed that the documents on the file of another suit which was decided as back as in the year 1978, have never been confronted to respondent No, 1 . Signatures on the document, appended to this file have neither been proved to be that of respondent No,1 nor have been admitted to be correct by the respondent No,1, hence the signatures on the said documents cannot legally be made as a basis for comparison of signatures on the disputed document".
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the opinion formed by the Courts below is unexceptionable and in aid of justice. The Trial Court has not exercised its discretion illegally or with material irregularity by sending Exh.D.2 for comparison of signatures to the handwriting expert. Leave is, therefore, refused.