Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
P L D 1982 Lahore 241
Before Muhammad Ilyas, J
Mst. ZAREEN AKHTAR KHAN‑Petitioner
versus
DR. MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ RANA AND 7 others--Respondents
Civil Revision No. 1184 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 4204‑C of 1981, decided on 13th September, 1981.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
S. 115 ‑Revision‑Order of trial Court directing that specimen signatures of party be obtained for securing opinion of Handwriting Expert‑Held, not a "case decided" within meanings of S. 115 and as such not amenable to revision by High Court.
Umar Dad Khan and another v. Tila Muhammad Khan and others P L D
1970 S C 288 ref.
M. Iqbal for Petitioner.
This civil revision calls in question an order of a Civil Judge whereby he had directed that specimen signatures of the petitioner, Mst. Zareena A. Khan be obtained with a view to securing the opinion of a Hand writing Expert of the question whether the signatures alleged to have been affixed by her on document were actually affixed by her.
2. When I asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the order under revision amounted to a "case decided" within the meanings of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure he replied in the affirmative and relied on Umar Dad Khan and another v. Tila Muhammad Khan and others P L D 1970 S C 288, in support of his submission. In the cited case certain opinion was expressed by a Handwriting Expert in regard to signatures on some questioned documents but the appellants did not feel satisfied with his report and ordered for a further comparison of the signatures on those documents. Their request in this behalf was not acceded to by the trial Court whereupon they filed a civil revision before the High Court. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court and then an appeal was vainly taken to the Supreme Court. The view expressed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court was that the order appealed against was not a "case decided". The position of the order assailed in the case before me is not much different from the one involved in the case under report. Therefore, respectfully following the dictum in that case, I hold that the order under revision is not a "case decided", and as such it is not amenable to revision by this Court.
3. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed in limine.
s. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer