P L D 1999 KARACHI 257
RANA MAMOON RASHEED
KOKAB NOORANI OKARVI AND 4 OTHERS
Per Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, J.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan(1973) Art. 199
Ratio of above two cases is that merely on the ground of illegality, the petition could not be filed, but if the impugned order was wholly void or coram non judice the same could be challenged through petition.[p. 259]A.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan(1973) Art. 84 & 199
Adverting back to the facts of the case, it is noted that the petitioner had filed an application under Article 84 of Qunum-e-Shahadat, which speaks about comparison of signature, writing, or seal with one which is to be proved. This article is not for seeking opinion of Handwriting Expert. It is the requirement of this Article that the disputed writing must purport to have been written by the person to whom it is attributed.
(C) Constitution of Pakistan(1973) Art. 199 & 84
Thus, it would be seen that more than one option was available for proving handwriting/signature. If learned Civil Judge preferred to other modes, than the opinion of Handwriting Expert, this fact by itself is not enough to hold that the course adopted by him to ascertain the genuineness of the document was improper.[p. 260]D.
On 3-3-1999, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had dismissed the petition in limine and these are reasons for the same.
In the case reported as Sheikh Gulzar Ali & Co. Ltd. and others v. Special Judge, Special Court of Banking and another 1991 SCMR 590, it was held by Supreme Court that mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction does not render the order passed by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal and without lawful authority as to amenable to be questioned in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is noted that both the aforesaid order were passed by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, as such, they could are legal. Under the circumstances, the petition is not maintainable.[p. 260]E.