Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 29‑D of 1970, decided on 22nd June 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 14th October 1969, in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 100 of 1963).

Art. 58(3)‑High Court fully agreeing with finding of lower Appellate Court, reached after its personal examination of disputed deed and also supported by opinion of Handwriting Expert that opposite party did not execute disputed deed‑Contention that opposite party having failed to supply his standard signatures as directed by Court, Curt should have drawn inference adverse to opposite party, held, of no force in circumstances‑Petition for Leave to Appeal dismissed.

A. Wadud Choudhury, Attorney Supreme Court instructed by Md. Behtar Ali, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd June 1970.

‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's Second Appeal and confirming the order of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff petitioner's suit.

The petitioner's claim in the said suit was based on the sale deed, Exh. 1, alleged to have been executed in his favour by defendant No. 1 on receipt of a partial consideration of Rs. 450 out of the stipulated price of Rs. 500.

Defendant No. 1 denied the execution of Exh. l., and on a comparison of his admitted signatures in another sale deed,. Exh. C‑2 with the signatures of the executant in the questioned deed, Exh. 1, the Handwriting Expert, who was a witness, found that the signatures on the two different deeds were in two different hands. Besides there were the standard signatures of defendant No. 1, namely, on the vakalatnama and the written statement, and the lower appellate Court found that the signature of defendant No. 1 in Exh. C‑2 tallied with his signatures in the vakalatnama and the written statement. The oral evidence also supported the finding of the lower appellate Court that defendant No. 1 did not execute Exh. 1. The High Court on a review of all the evidence fully agreed with this finding.

There is hardly any force in the petitioner's contention that inasmuch as defendant No. 1 failed to supply his standard signature as directed by the trial Court it should have drawn an inference adverse to the defendant. It appears that the petitioner never wanted that such signature should be obtained by the Court and sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with his signature in Exh. 1.

There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.