Thumb Impression and Impersonation Case Law
PLJ 2013 · Lahore High Court (Multan Bench)
This case involved a property dispute where a suit for specific performance of a contract was filed over land based on an alleged agreement. During the case, the defendant (the petitioner in this writ petition) claimed that a written statement and a power of attorney filed on his behalf were forged, and that his thumb impressions on these documents had been fraudulently obtained through impersonation. He asked the trial court to cancel these documents, but his application was dismissed, and his subsequent appeal to the Additional District Judge was also rejected. Both lower courts had relied on the general legal presumption that documents filed in court proceedings are truthful.
The Lahore High Court disagreed with this approach. It found that neither court had actually investigated the fraud allegation properly, no issues had been framed, and no evidence had been recorded to check whether the documents were genuine. The court pointed out that under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, courts have the power to compare disputed thumb impressions with genuine ones, or refer them to a forensic expert, to determine authenticity. Simply noting that the petitioner's CNIC number appeared on file was not enough to confirm his identity or rule out impersonation.
The High Court set aside the lower courts' orders, ruling that when serious allegations of fraud and impersonation are raised, courts must properly examine the evidence, including comparing thumb impressions, rather than dismissing such claims based on procedural presumptions alone.
یہ مقدمہ زمین سے متعلق ایک تنازعہ سے متعلق تھا جس میں ایک مبینہ معاہدے کی بنیاد پر معاہدے کی مخصوص انجام دہی (specific performance) کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا گیا تھا۔ مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران مدعا علیہ (جو اس رٹ پٹیشن میں درخواست گزار ہیں) نے یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ ان کی طرف سے داخل کردہ تحریری جواب اور مختار نامہ جعلی ہیں، اور یہ کہ ان دستاویزات پر موجود ان کے انگوٹھے کے نشانات جعل سازی اور کسی اور شخص کے بہروپ اختیار کرنے (impersonation) کے ذریعے دھوکہ دہی سے حاصل کیے گئے تھے۔ انہوں نے ٹرائل کورٹ سے استدعا کی کہ ان دستاویزات کو کالعدم قرار دیا جائے، مگر ان کی درخواست خارج کر دی گئی، اور ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج کے سامنے دائر کی گئی ان کی بعد کی اپیل بھی مسترد ہو گئی۔ ماتحت عدالتوں نے اس عمومی قانونی مفروضے پر انحصار کیا کہ عدالتی کارروائی میں داخل کردہ دستاویزات کو درست تسلیم کیا جاتا ہے۔
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اس رویے سے اختلاف کیا۔ عدالت نے