SAEEDA BEGUM Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE

The petitioners, have moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned orders, dated 5‑12‑1987 and 4‑4‑1987, passed by the respondents N4tos. 1 and 2 respectively, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. There is a long history of the case which need not be repeated here. The civil suit between n the parties is still pending adjudication before the trial Court.

3. On 2‑4‑1987 Shuja‑ul‑Hassan, respondent No.3 moved an application requesting that Mr. Zaka A. Malik, Handwriting Expert, Lahore may be allowed permission to see the disputed signatures on the disputed receipt so that t e may be able to complete his report for its submission before the learned trial Court. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court on 4‑4‑1987. The above interim order was challenged by the present petitioner by filing a revision petition before the learned District Judge, Lahore. The learned District Judge proceeded to dismiss the petition vide has order, dated 5‑12‑1987.

4. The learned counsel contended that the order, dated 4‑4‑1987 was passed behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. Learned counsel argued that in order to find out the truth in the matter the request of the petitioner should have been allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned judgment, dated 5‑12‑1987 was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. He next argued that no prejudice has been caused by the order, dated 4‑4‑1987 having been passed by the learned trial Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. It may be noted that the learned revisional Court has vividly observed that the handwriting expert has already appeared in Court and his statement has been recorded. The report of the handwriting expert has also been placed on record and duly accepted. He next noted that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise objections regarding the evidence of the handwriting expert. In paragraph No.3 of the revisional order the learned Judge observed that the petitioner/ plaintiff could show in his evidence, produced by him in rebuttal that the signatures on the receipt were not his and he could lead evidence in his support. Learned counsel for the petitioner has net been able to point out any legal infirmities in the impugned order. It appears that the case of the petitioner has not been prejudiced on merits. He shall be entitled to challenge the validity of the report of the handwriting expert and shall also be competent to produce evidence in rebuttal. With this observation, I do not find any justification to interfere in the order, passed by the learned Court below. This petition being devoid of force is dismissed) leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H. B. T./S‑193/L Petition dismissed.