Expert Evidence confirmed that the Disputed Signatures did not belong to the Respondent --- Lahore High Court dismissal Appeal and refuse to remand the Case

Islamabad 06-12-2024: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court dismissed an Appeal [RFA 92515 of 2017] filed by Shahid Hussain in a case involving a disputed promissory note worth Rs. 500,000. The Court upheld the trial Court’s decision, citing the appellant’s failure to produce evidence and the adverse findings of forensic experts.

The Appellant had originally filed a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recovery of Rs. 500,000 based on a promissory note dated 22.11.2003. The trial Court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the decision was later challenged and remanded by the Lahore High Court in 2015 for a retrial with specific directions to verify the execution of the promissory note.

Post-remand, the trial Court referred the disputed document for forensic examination, which concluded that the signatures on the promissory note did not belong to the Respondent, Abdul Jabbar Tassaduq. Despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to produce evidence to counter this finding.

The Appellant argued that the trial Court had disregarded pre-remand evidence and acted hastily in closing his right to produce further evidence. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, noting that:

1. Pre-remand evidence remained admissible under the remand order.
2. The forensic evidence conclusively disproved the appellant’s claim.
3. The appellant adopted delaying tactics, repeatedly seeking adjournments over a period of 15 months.

The Court highlighted several legal principles:

1. Trial Courts must adhere strictly to remand orders, as pre-remand evidence remains valid unless explicitly excluded.  
2. The plaintiff must prove the execution of a disputed promissory note, failing which the case cannot succeed.  
3. Forensic findings play a pivotal role in determining the authenticity of disputed documents.  
4. Courts must prevent undue delays and exercise discretion in closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC when litigants fail to comply.

Dismissing the Appeal, Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad stated that further remanding the case would serve no purpose other than prolonging the litigation. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 for his failure to prove his case and for causing unnecessary delays.

This judgment reinforces the importance of timely evidence production, reliance on expert reports, and the Court’s duty to manage proceedings efficiently. It also serves as a precedent for cases involving disputed documents, particularly promissory notes.

Powered by Froala Editor