| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4803 2025 SLD 4803 = 2025 LHC 6141 = 2026 PLJ 100 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.53343 of 2025.
PRESENT; (AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD) JUDGE.
Date of hearing: 20.10.2025. Petitioners by: Muhammad Imran Sulehria, Advocate.
Respondent No.1 by: Muhammad Qamar, Advocate. (Submits power of attorney today).
Respondents No.2-3 by: Ch. Tanvir Akhtar, Addl. Advocate General Punjab.
Writ Petition No.53343 of 2025.
PRESENT; (AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD) JUDGE.
Date of hearing: 20.10.2025. Petitioners by: Muhammad Imran Sulehria, Advocate.
Respondent No.1 by: Muhammad Qamar, Advocate. (Submits power of attorney today).
Respondents No.2-3 by: Ch. Tanvir Akhtar, Addl. Advocate General Punjab.
Muhammad Suleman, etc.
VERSUS
Muhammad Qamar, etc.
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 59,84
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,39
Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section: 115,119
| Tag Line: Articles 59 and 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Comparison and signature & Thumb impression.-------- Modern forensic tools must be utilized to uncover the truth and uphold substantive justice over procedural technicalities------ Judicial discretion must be exercised to ensure fair adjudication, even if the alleged signatory is deceased------------- When the authenticity of a disputed document forms the core of a legal dispute, especially involving allegations of forgery, courts are duty-bound to seek expert opinion under Articles 59 and 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984-------. Denial of forensic comparison in such cases amounts to a miscarriage of justice. |
SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT
1. Nature of Petition
- Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
- Petitioners challenged the orders of the Trial Court (12.02.2025) and Revisional Court (30.06.2025) whereby their application for comparison of signatures/thumb impressions of deceased Muhammad Khalid was dismissed.
2. Facts of the Case
Respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance and validation of possession based on:
- Agreement to Sell dated 27.08.2014 (Exh.P1)
- Receipt dated 27.08.2014 (Exh.P2)
- Petitioners (legal heirs of Muhammad Khalid) denied execution, alleging forgery and fabrication.
- They also filed a separate suit for cancellation of the alleged agreement.
- During consolidated proceedings, petitioners applied for forensic comparison of disputed signatures/thumb impressions with admitted ones.
- The application was rejected by both lower courts.
3. Key Legal Provisions Involved
a. Article 59 — Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (Opinion of Experts)
- Courts may seek assistance of experts in matters involving handwriting, signature, or fingerprint identification.
b. Article 84 — Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (Comparison of Signatures/Thumb Impressions)
- Courts may compare disputed signatures, writing, or thumb impressions with admitted ones.
- Expert opinion is a relevant fact.
- No specific stage of proceedings is prescribed for moving such an application.
c. Article 199 — Constitution of Pakistan
- Provides High Court jurisdiction to correct illegal or arbitrary exercise of authority by courts below.
4. Court’s Observations
a. Authenticity is central to the lis
- The dispute revolves entirely around whether Exh.P1 and Exh.P2 were executed by Muhammad Khalid.
The plea of forgery is not superficial; it forms the core defence.
b. Forensic assistance is necessary in cases of alleged forgery
- When execution of a document is seriously disputed:
- Court must exercise discretion judiciously.
- Must use all available tools, including expert examination.
c. Expert opinion does not override the court
- It merely assists the judicial mind. Denial of opportunity to seek such opinion violates principles of natural justice.
d. Deceased executant – comparison still possible
- Court rejected the argument that signatures/fingerprints of a deceased cannot be compared.
Admitted thumb impressions may be obtained from: - NADRA, or
- other official records.
e. Application not time-barred
- No stage limitation exists under Article 84 QSO.
Reliance placed on:
- Ghulam Haider v. Fateh Muhammad (2005 MLD 1501).
5. Case Law Relied Upon
i. 2009 SCMR 264 — Mst. Akhtar Begum v. MCB
- Strong denial of signatures requires reference to handwriting experts.
- Litigant has the right to seek all possible assistance from court to prove forgery.
ii. 2012 SCMR 1258 — Syed Sharif ul Hassan v. Hafiz Muhammad Amin
- Where authenticity depends on disputed thumb impressions or signatures, expert opinion is essential for fair adjudication.
6. Use of Modern Forensic Technology
Court emphasized:
- Modern forensic tools (AFIS, biometric analysis, digital magnification) significantly improve accuracy.
- Courts must not remain insulated from scientific advancements.
7. Findings
Orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court were: