PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

SABIR HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/MCAC, Layyah art — 2025 CLC 785 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2025 CLC 785 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
CLC
Parties
SABIR HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/MCAC, Layyah art
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 12---S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

SABIR HUSSAIN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/MCAC, Layyah art. 84---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance---application for comparison of signatures and/or thumb impression through expert---Scope---Plaintiff filed an application for comparison of thumb impressions of defendants on the agreement with their specimen/admitted thumb impressions, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, and revision filed against said dismissal order was also dismissed by the District Court---Ground for dismissal was that report of the finger expert was a corroborative piece of evidence and the application had been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner at belated stage just to linger on the trial, hence, the same could not be allowed---argument of respondents was that allowing the petitioner to effect comparison of thumb impression of the respondents was likely to result into injustice in so far as one defendant/respondent No.5, was minor at the time of alleged execution of the agreement---Validity---Even if it was proved that alleged thumb impression of said minor respondent on the agreement was genuine, the same would 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 respondents had no force---High Court set-aide the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, as a consequence, application of the petitioner for conducting comparison of the thumb impression and/or signatures, of respondents, was accepted---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English