Signature and Thumb impression in the eyes of the court.
 |
| Importance of signature and thumb impression |
زیرِ نظر فیصلہ لاہور ہائیکورٹ، ملتان بنچ کا ہے جو ایک اہم قانونی نکتے، یعنی معاہدۂ بیع کی تصدیق کے لیے انگوٹھوں کے نشانات کے تقابل سے متعلق ہے۔ عدالت نے اس اصول کو واضح کیا کہ انصاف کے تقاضے پورے کرنے کے لیے تکنیکی رکاوٹوں کے بجائے حقائق تک رسائی کو ترجیح دی جانی چاہیے، خواہ اس سے کارروائی میں کچھ تاخیر ہی کیوں نہ ہو۔
مقدمے کا پس منظر
درخواست گزار نے مورخہ 03-04-2008 کے ایک مبینہ معاہدۂ فروخت کی بنیاد پر دعویٰ برائے مخصوص نفاذِ معاہدہ دائر کیا۔ مدعا علیہان ایک ہی خاندان کے افراد تھے جبکہ ایک مدعا علیہ صوبہ پنجاب تھا۔ معاہدے کے وقت ایک مدعا علیہ نابالغ تھا۔ مدعا علیہان نے معاہدے کی تکمیل اور اپنے انگوٹھوں کے نشانات کو مکمل طور پر تسلیم کرنے سے انکار کیا۔
ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلیٹ فورم کی کارروائی
فریقین کے شواہد ریکارڈ ہو چکے تھے۔ درخواست گزار نے ایک درخواست دائر کی کہ معاہدے پر موجود انگوٹھوں کے نشانات کا تقابل مدعا علیہان کے نمونہ جاتی یا تسلیم شدہ انگوٹھوں کے نشانات سے کرایا جائے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے یہ درخواست اس بنیاد پر مسترد کر دی کہ یہ درخواست تاخیر سے دائر کی گئی ہے اور فنگر ایکسپرٹ کی رپورٹ محض تائیدی شہادت ہوتی ہے۔ اس فیصلے کو نظرثانی عدالت نے بھی برقرار رکھا۔
درخواست گزار کا مؤقف
درخواست گزار نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ ماتحت عدالتوں نے سپریم کورٹ کے طے شدہ اصولوں کو نظرانداز کیا، خصوصاً اس حقیقت کو کہ ایک مدعا علیہ نے بطور گواہ عدالت میں تقابل پر رضامندی ظاہر کی تھی۔ مزید یہ کہ سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلوں کے مطابق کسی بھی فریق کو یہ حق حاصل ہے کہ وہ اپنے دعوے کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے ماہرین کی رائے سے مدد حاصل کرے۔
مدعا علیہان کا اعتراض
مدعا علیہان نے دلیل دی کہ متنازعہ زمین دراصل حکومتِ پنجاب کی ملکیت ہے اور ابھی تک ملکیتی حقوق منتقل نہیں ہوئے۔ مزید یہ کہ چونکہ ایک مدعا علیہ معاہدے کے وقت نابالغ تھا، اس لیے معاہدہ بذاتِ خود قانوناً ناقابلِ نفاذ ہے، لہٰذا انگوٹھوں کے نشانات کا تقابل بے فائدہ ہوگا۔
ہائیکورٹ کی قانونی تشریح
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ ثبوت کا مقصد عدالت کو درست اور منصفانہ نتیجے تک پہنچنے میں مدد دینا ہے۔ انگوٹھوں کے نشانات کا تقابل بھی ثبوت کا ایک جائز اور تسلیم شدہ ذریعہ ہے۔ محض یہ وجہ کہ درخواست تاخیر سے دائر ہوئی، اسے مسترد کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں، خصوصاً جب قانون میں ایسی درخواست کے لیے کوئی مخصوص مدت مقرر نہیں کی گئی۔
نابالغ کی اہلیت سے متعلق نکتہ
عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ اگر نابالغ مدعا علیہ کے انگوٹھے کا نشان درست بھی ثابت ہو جائے تو اس سے صرف معاہدے کی تکمیل ثابت ہوگی، نہ کہ اس کی قانونی اہلیت۔ اہلیت کا سوال قانون کا سوال ہے جس کا فیصلہ ٹرائل کورٹ نے کرنا ہے، نہ کہ فنگر ایکسپرٹ کی رپورٹ نے۔
انصاف کے تقاضے اور عدالتی ذمہ داری
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر درخواست گزار کو انگوٹھوں کے نشانات کے تقابل کی اجازت نہ دی جاتی تو اس کے خلاف منفی تاثر قائم ہو سکتا تھا، جو انصاف کے منافی ہے۔ عدالت کا فرض ہے کہ وہ جلد بازی کے بجائے درست اور منصفانہ فیصلہ دے، چاہے اس میں کچھ وقت ہی کیوں نہ لگے۔
حتمی فیصلہ
ان تمام وجوہات کی بنیاد پر لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے آئینی درخواست منظور کرتے ہوئے ماتحت عدالتوں کے احکامات کالعدم قرار دیے اور انگوٹھوں کے نشانات و دستخطوں کے تقابل کی درخواست منظور کر لی۔
قانونی اہمیت
یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ ماہرین کی رائے تک رسائی فریق کا قانونی حق ہے اور عدالتیں محض تاخیر یا تکنیکی بنیادوں پر ایسے مواقع سے انکار نہیں کر سکتیں، خاص طور پر جب معاملہ انصاف کے بنیادی تقاضوں سے جڑا ہو۔
Must read judgment
Stereo. H C J D A 38.
JUDGMENT SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT
MULTAN BENCH MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P No.993/2022
Sabir Hussain
Versus
Additional District Judge etc.
J U D G M E N T
Date of Hearing
30.01.2024
Petitioner By:
Mr. Mehmood Ashraf Khan, Advocate
Respondents No.3-
10 By:
Syed Athar Hassan Shah Bukhari, Advocate
Respondent No.11
By:
Ms. Samina Mehmood Rana, Assistant
Advocate General.
Respondent No.12
Proceeded
ex-parte
vide
order dated
18.01.2024
Anwaar Hussain J: The petitioner instituted suit for specific
performance of contract on the basis of an agreement to sell dated
03.04.2008 (“the agreement”) against respondents No.3 to 12.
Respondents No.3 to 10 are members of same family whereas
respondent No.11 is Province of Punjab. Respondent No.12 is
admittedly close relative (brother in law) of the petitioner, who also
statedly entered into an agreement to sell with respondents No.3 to 10.
When the suit was instituted on 12.03.2015, admittedly respondent
No.5 was minor. The execution of the agreement was flatly denied by
respondents No.3 to 10. Issues were framed and evidence of both
sides have been admittedly recorded. The petitioner filed an
application for comparison of thumb impression of respondents No.3
to 10 on the agreement with their specimen/admitted thumb
impressions, which was dismissed through order dated 15.09.2021,
inter alia, on the ground that report of the finger expert is
corroborative piece of evidence and the application has been filed by
the petitioner at belated stage just to linger on the trial hence, the same
cannot be allowed. Order dated 15.09.2021 has been upheld by the
Revisional Court below, vide impugned order dated 08.11.2021.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts
below have erred by not appreciating the dicta laid down by the
Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as “Syed Sharif ul Hassan
W.P No.993/2022
through L.Rs. v. Hafiz Muhammad Amin and others” (2012 SCMR
1258) while dismissing the application of the petitioner for
comparison of thumb impression of respondents No.3 to 10 even
though respondent No.4 while appearing as DW-1 agreed to the said
comparison. He also places reliance on an unreported judgment of the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.787 of 2017 titled as “Mst. Afzala
Virks v. Mian Fazal Haq (decd) thr: L.Rs. & another” in support of
his contentions.
3.
Conversely, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 10 submits
that the suit instituted by the petitioner is not maintainable as the
disputed land belongs to the Government of Punjab and proprietary
rights had not been granted to respondents No.3 to 10 till date. Adds
that even if it is established that the respondents have affixed their
signatures and/or thumb impression on the agreement, the same is of
no help to the petitioner as one of the respondents was a minor and a
minor cannot enter into a valid agreement under the law in terms of
Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872.
4.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
5.
Admittedly, the suit property was allotted by the Government to
predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 10 and after demise of
said predecessor-in-interest, respondents No.3 to 10 are in occupation
thereof. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case
lest it may prejudice the case of either side, it is well evident from the
record that the suit was instituted by the petitioner on the basis of the
agreement purportedly executed by respondents No.3 to 10, which
includes respondent No.5, who was a minor at the time of execution
of the agreement. The execution of the agreement was outrightly
denied by respondents No.3 to 10. The case of the petitioner depends
upon proving the agreement through which the suit property has
allegedly been sold by respondents No.3 to 10 to the petitioner. It is
noteworthy that the object for production of evidence is assistance to
the Courts to reach a just conclusion. An application for comparison
of thumb impression is one such mode. The only hinderance in not
W.P No.993/2022
allowing the application could be if the plaintiff intended to fill in the
lacunae of his case after the conclusion of evidence. In the instant
case, the respondent side has failed to point out any such effort on part
of the petitioner. There appears to be no harm to either side if
comparison of thumb impression is made. In fact, the said exercise
will be appropriate and in the interest of justice to reach a fair
conclusion and render a just and proper decision, even at the cost of
some delay in conclusion of the trial. For a Court of law, rendering a
fair and just decision is more important than to act hurriedly by
drawing a wrong conclusion. Mere fact that application for
comparison of thumb impression has been moved at the stage when
the entire evidence has been recorded is not a cogent reason to dismiss
the application. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that no time has
been stipulated in terms of Article 84 of the of Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order, 1984 for filing the application of comparison of the signatures
and/or thumb impression through expert. Case reported as “Ghulam
Haider v. Fateh Muhammad (2005 MLD 1501) is referred in this
regard. Moreover, it is the right of a litigant to seek indulgence of the
Court so as to discharge the burden of proof placed upon him
including comparison of the disputed thumb impressions. I am
fortified by the law laid down in case reported as “Mst. Akhtar Begum
v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2009 SCMR 264). In case of Mst.
Akhtar Begum supra while sending the signatures of the petitioner
therein for expert opinion in the said case, the Supreme Court held
that it is the right of a party to seek and demand every possible
assistance from the Courts of law and to hold him/herself responsible
only when he or she has acted contrary to law.
6.
Moreover, when the evidence was recorded, respondent No.4,
namely, Muhammad Irshad, appeared as DW-1 and candidly
conceded that they (respondents) have no objection if their
(respondents No.3 to 10) signatures are sent to the finger expert for
comparison. Both the Courts below have ignored this aspect of the
case as well. In order to ensure that correct conclusion is reached in
the matter, the Court can look around for an evidence of un-
W.P No.993/2022
impeccable caliber such as finger expert, more particularly, when
there is a complete denial on part of the respondents/defendants that
they have not affixed their thumb impression on the agreement. It is in
the interest of justice that the petitioner be allowed to prove his stance
by having recourse to the forensic science/handwriting expert. Dicta
laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Syed Sharif ul Hassan
supra, supports the stance of the petitioner. Reliance on an unreported
judgment in case of Mst. Afzala Virks supra is also well placed.
7.
In so far as the argument of learned counsel for respondents
No.3 to 10 that allowing the petitioner to effect comparison of thumb
impression of the respondents is likely to result into injustice in so far
as respondent No.5, who was minor at the time of alleged execution of
the agreement, is concerned, suffice to mention that even if it is
proved that alleged thumb impression of respondent No. 5 on the
agreement is genuine, the same will merely go on to prove (or
otherwise) the execution of the agreement without having any bearing
on the competency of the said respondent who was admittedly minor
at the time of execution of the agreement as the competency to
contract is a question of law and is to be decided by the Trial Court on
the basis of applicable law and not on the basis of the report of the
finger expert. Therefore, argument of learned counsel for respondents
No.3 to 10 has no force.
8.
The matter can be examined from another angle. Had the
petitioner failed to seek comparison of signature, through expert
evidence, in the face of express and outright denial as to the execution
of the agreement, the same may propel the Trial Court as also the
higher forums to harbour adverse inference against the petitioner/
plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that non-acceptance of
the application of comparison of thumb impression will lead to
miscarriage of justice and thwart the Trial Court in reaching a just
conclusion, which is not permissible under the law and will defeat
ends of justice.
W.P No.993/2022
9.
In view of the above discussion, this constitutional petition is
allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are set
aside. As a consequence, application of the petitioner for conducting
comparison of the thumb impression and/or signatures, of respondents
No.3 to 10, is accepted.
(ANWAAR HUSSAIN)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting
Judge