Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 59

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984).- ----Art_ 59---Opinion of expert---Petitioner husband who denied execution of disputed agreement in favour of respondent wife with regard to payment of dower amount to her, had made application before Appellate Court below for grant of permission to produce expert witness for comparison  of  his  thumb  -impression  with thumb-impression on disputed agreement, but Court without applying its judicial mind to facts and circumstances of case, dismissed application of petitioner---Main question before Court was as to whether agreement was executed by petitioner after 7 months of Nikah between spouses and that same bore his thumb-impression---Best evidence in matter was that of Expert witness who could compare thumb-impression as unlike signature of a person, it was not possible to forge thumb-impression-- Application of petitioner for getting his admitted thumb-impressions compared with his alleged thumb-impression, should have been accepted as said evidence was required by Court for writing judgment effectively and finally on crucial issue---Appellate Court below in dismissing application of petitioner had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under law---Petition. was accepted. MA. Aziz for Petitioner. Mrs. Shaista Kaisar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1992.   JUDGMENT In this Constitutional Petition the legality of judgments and decrees dated 5-3-1991 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Samundri and 22-1-1992 passed by the learned Additional 4_1 District Judge, Faisalabad, have been called in question. The facts of the case shortly stated are that respondent No.l filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.49,000.00 against the petitioner on the basis of an agreement Exh. PI allegedly executed by the petitioner in her favour in which the dower amount was fixed at Rs.50,000.00. This document was allegedly executed on 18-10-1986 whereas the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10-3-1986. The case of the respondent No.l was that though the dower amount was settled at Rs.50,000.00 but in the Nikahnama it was wrongly stated as Rs.50.00. According to respondent No.l…