The trial court ruled that the jurisdiction to compare the effect of the thumb to the Arts 59 and 84 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XVIII, R 2 and Section 151 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), section 42 suit. The applicant who applied for the comparison of the plaintiff's thumb impressions in which the appeal was filed was excluded. The defendants conceded that the original documents were not presented in evidence and that the thumb impression could not be compared to the legal documents submitted in court were copies of the author's register. The stamp vendor and the scribe seller were presented to the court by the original register and copies of the relevant pages were presented for display, and the defendants requested to register the VISA to counter the defendant's thumb impression. Was appropriate for a fair trial of the central case. Defendants did not submit to the court that the thumb impressions on the documents were the result of sentimentality, arguments or illicit influence, but their case was that the plaintiff denied their signatures on the contentious documents. The impression of one person's thumb was not related to the impression of another person's thumb in the world. Anyone enrolled in a forensic science laboratory can help reach a correct and correct decision in court and would be beneficial to the plaintiff if they did not provide fingerprints on these documents. The impeachment order approved by the cross-examination appellate court was set aside and a request was made to compare the impression of the thumb, with the appellate court disputing the contention by a fingerprint specialist.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
